AHL rule changes include 3 on 3 overtime

[joshjull]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/ahl-rule-changes-include-3-on-3-overtime-and-thats-awesome/

The AHL has a few rule changes

The most prominent: the introduction of 3-on-3 overtime. The league states:

Full playing strength will be 4-on-4 until the first whistle following three minutes of play (4:00 remaining), at which time full strength will be reduced to 3-on-3 for the duration of the overtime period. If the game is still tied following overtime, a winner will be determined by a three-player shootout.

So not only is overtime longer at seven minutes, up to four minutes of the extra frame can be played 3-on-3.

UPDATE: I asked an AHL representative how power plays will be handled in a 3-on-3 format. The team with the man advantage will gain a player, creating a 4-on-3 or a 5-on-3.

Listening to Chad Cassidy and Duff on Hockey Hotline. The OT rules were not pushed by the NHL. It was the AHL taking the initiative.

The AHL adds several more rule changes for 2014-15:

1) Teams will switch sides before overtime and the ice will receive a “dry scrape.”
2) Any player who fights twice in a game or incurs three major penalties of any kind will receive an automatic ejection.
3) Players who lose their helmets have to leave the ice immediately or put their bonnets back on with the chinstrap fastened, lest they receive a two-minute minor.

Click to read more...

 

[Zip15]

I like it. On the rare occasion where the NHL goes 3-on-3 in OT due to penalties, it's exciting hockey. I also like that the AHL is forcing the long change in OT. Ultimately, I hope the NHL adopts the 3-on-3 OT.

 

[MayDay]

Hey I have an idea.

How about a 5-minute 5-on-5 overtime, and if it's still tied after that, it's a tie.

2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss.

 

[joshjull]

Hey I have an idea.

How about a 5-minute 5-on-5 overtime, and if it's still tied after that, it's a tie.

2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss.

I like this idea but have a slightly different take.

3 points for a win
1 for a tie
No OT


3 point gives greater reward for winning and takes away the reward for defense first hang on for the tie hockey.

 

[ZZamboni]

I just hate skills competitions ... errr I mean shootouts to determine winners. So anything to avoid that I'll support.

4 on 4
3 on 3
Blindfolded
Stickless goalie
No offsides
Someone from the coaching staff has to suit up
Players from opposing bench can spray a player on the ice with water as they skate by

Anything anything is better than the shootout IMO

 

[Chad Thundercock]

North America's hatred of ties and shootouts remains strange to me.

I'm for the 3 point win, 1 point tie idea. And ban any points for losses forever.

 

[joshjull]

North America's hatred of ties and shootouts remains strange to me.

I'm for the 3 point win, 1 point tie idea. And ban any points for losses forever.

Well a large segment of NHL fans enjoy the shootout. I would say much of the dislike that there is is equally divided between the point system and the shootout deciding games.


As for ties, the dislike for it the NHL needs to be viewed in context. Many teams over the years would play for the tie instead of going for the win. It led to some pretty boring 3rd periods with trapping and sitting back. Now in the setup you and I suggested there would be less of an incentive to do that. If anything teams would likely push for the win since the win has much greater value. But I imagine that will never happen because it would create a much clearer delineation in the standings between the good teams and the bad. Its easier to keep fans interested with the current system since your team can stay involved in the playoff race for longer.

 

[Jame]

I don't mind the shootout, but I would prefer less of it, and less impact from it...

3 pts regulation win
0 pts regulation loss

3 pts OT win
1 pt OT Loss

2 pts SO win
0 pts SO loss

You wouldn't even need to reduce skaters in OT, team's would be going for those extra points...

 

[joshjull]

Players who lose their helmets have to leave the ice immediately or put their bonnets back on with the chinstrap fastened, lest they receive a two-minute minor.


It will be interesting to see how long it will take players getting penalized before they start getting in the habit of going off the ice/ or quickly replacing their helmet. And come playoffs can you imagine a team losing due to this penalty getting called late in the game.


Any player who fights twice in a game or incurs three major penalties of any kind will receive an automatic ejection.

I can't imagine in this day and age that players get into 2 fights in game very often.

I also find it hard to believe a player could get 3 majors in one game either. Most major penalties called these days lead to an ejection. The odds of getting three in a game and not getting ejected before the 3rd seems close to impossible.

 

[Paxon]

Only three minutes of 4-on-4 isn't good in my book. They should've figured another way to work 3-on-3 in.

North America's hatred of ties and shootouts remains strange to me.

I'm for the 3 point win, 1 point tie idea. And ban any points for losses forever.

We only have shootouts because people hate ties, so I'm not sure it's sensible to compare the two. The groups of people who hate one generally support the other. Most of the "purist" types who hate shootouts would be just fine with going back to ties.

If you want to eliminate points for losses, just eliminate points. You have wins and losses, regardless of if they came in OT/shootout or not. Regulation wins can still be used to have more weight in standings tiebreaker scenarios. Why should a tie count for less than half a win? Every game should count for the same amount of points, that's the problem with the current system.

 

[Jame]

Players who lose their helmets have to leave the ice immediately or put their bonnets back on with the chinstrap fastened, lest they receive a two-minute minor.


It will be interesting to see how long it will take players getting penalized before they start getting in the habit of going off the ice/ or quickly replacing their helmet. And come playoffs can you imagine a team losing due to this penalty getting called late in the game.


Any player who fights twice in a game or incurs three major penalties of any kind will receive an automatic ejection.

I can't imagine in this day and age that players get into 2 fights in game very often.

I also find it hard to believe a player could get 3 majors in one game either. Most major penalties called these days lead to an ejection. The odds of getting three in a game and not getting ejected before the 3rd seems close to impossible.

I hate both of these...

 

[brian_griffin]

I hate both of these...

The helmet thing is, I strongly suspect, for player safety.

In some respects, the "instinctive reaction" will become the same as for a broken stick.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out, though. I can see where some instances may arise in corner puck battles, etc., where an opponent deliberately attempts to remove a player's helmet - and will then be called for interference or roughing.

===============================================
As for the awarded points system:
I am not a fan of either 3-on-3 OT, or unequal points available for each game (makes our playoff prediction spreadsheets difficult).

I'd be fine with:
3 pt regulation win
0 pt regulation loss

2 pt OT win (5 min OT)
1 pt OT loss

2 pt shootout win
1 pt shootout loss

For games ending OT tied, maybe teams should have the mutual option of choosing a line brawl instead of the shootout / skills competition.

 

[Jame]

The helmet thing is, I strongly suspect, for player safety.

In some respects, the "instinctive reaction" will become the same as for a broken stick.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out, though. I can see where some instances may arise in corner puck battles, etc., where an opponent deliberately attempts to remove a player's helmet - and will then be called for interference or roughing.

that's exactly what i first thought of...

As for the awarded points system:
I am not a fan of either 3-on-3 OT, or unequal points available for each game (makes our playoff prediction spreadsheets difficult).

I'd be fine with:
3 pt regulation win
0 pt regulation loss

2 pt OT win (5 min OT)
1 pt OT loss

2 pt shootout win
1 pt shootout loss

For games ending OT tied, maybe teams should have the mutual option of choosing a line brawl instead of the shootout / skills competition.

I don't have any issue with unequal pts...

 

[hizzoner]

I see no reason to insist on a winner although some attempt should be made to encourage a decision. Longer OT periods concern me. Teams will want to put their better players out--meaning more minutes when they already have put in the most. This can lead to over tiredness and possible injury. As well with back to back games and flight/connecting flight issues it may be asking too much of the team's top players. I would think this might concern the NHLPA. Maybe 3 on 3 for 5 minutes then 3 shootout attempts. No winner? Each gets a point. 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/shootout win....

 

[Chad Thundercock]

Teams will play for ties, sure. But not as badly as they do now to get to OT and that guaranteed point. The current system is so horrible in every way.

 

[MayDay]

I just wish that for once the NHL could adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle. Just once.

But everytime they make changes, they make things more byzantine and complicated for no good reason.

There's 8 freaking columns in the standings now. EIGHT! GP - W -L -OTL - PTS - ROW - SOW - SOL

It's absurd.

And look at these proposals for the draft lottery. Average points out for a given position over X number of years divided by the total points out of all positions...

Do these NHL execs even listen to themselves talk when they come up with these things? Do they have any interest in making their game accessible to the common fan?

 

[Beerz]

I can't wait for teams to target a player thats already been in a fight.

What a cluster **** if this rule is ever implemented into the NHL.

 

[Jame]

Teams will play for ties, sure. But not as badly as they do now to get to OT and that guaranteed point.

What?

 

[Jame]

I can't wait for teams to target a player thats already been in a fight.

What a cluster **** if this rule is ever implemented into the NHL.

Yup... To compensate they will come up with more dumb rules... "If you get an instigator against a player who has already received a fighting major..." Lol

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I just wish that for once the NHL could adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle. Just once.

But everytime they make changes, they make things more byzantine and complicated for no good reason.

There's 8 freaking columns in the standings now. EIGHT! GP - W -L -OTL - PTS - ROW - SOW - SOL

It's absurd.

And look at these proposals for the draft lottery. Average points out for a given position over X number of years divided by the total points out of all positions...

Do these NHL execs even listen to themselves talk when they come up with these things? Do they have any interest in making their game accessible to the common fan?

you wanted to know the method.... Seems like the A has the cake for now

 

[tsujimoto74]

I don't mind the shootout, but I would prefer less of it, and less impact from it...

3 pts regulation win
0 pts regulation loss

3 pts OT win
1 pt OT Loss

2 pts SO win
0 pts SO loss

You wouldn't even need to reduce skaters in OT, team's would be going for those extra points...

Why would you get a point for losing in OT but get zero points if you survived OT without getting scored on? Doesn't make any sense.

 

[Paxon]

Why would you get a point for losing in OT but get zero points if you survived OT without getting scored on? Doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, it's nonsense. Every game should be worth the same total points, and in that, nothing should be valued inequally with how its counterpart is devalued. Any point subtracted from a form of win should be given to the loss, otherwise what's the point? The only two systems that make any sense are a 3-2-1 point system where every game is worth exactly 3 total points, or a no-point system where you simply record wins and losses, but still use non-shootout wins to determine the first standings tiebreaker.

 

[misterchainsaw]

Any system that awards a different number of total points depending on the result of the game is a complete non-starter for me. And that includes the current system, obviously.

If the NHL would stop rewarding teams for getting to overtime (by awarding 3 total points instead of two), maybe they'd see more games end in regulation. 3 for R/OT win, 2 for SOW, 1 for SOL, nothing for OTL/regulation L. Or just drop the shootout and go W/L/T. Whatever.

 

[Paxon]

Any system that awards a different number of total points depending on the result of the game is a complete non-starter for me. And that includes the current system, obviously.

If the NHL would stop rewarding teams for getting to overtime (by awarding 3 total points instead of two), maybe they'd see more games end in regulation. 3 for R/OT win, 2 for SOW, 1 for SOL, nothing for OTL/regulation L. Or just drop the shootout and go W/L/T. Whatever.

That's my preferred way of using a 3-2-1 system. 4 on 4 is perfectly legitimate hockey. The result being somewhat illegitimate is the only reason to dock points from the winner on behalf of the loser, so that should be resolved reserved for shootouts. Other sports don't give points to the overtime loser.

3-2-1, whether the 2+1 starts at OT or the shootout, and the straight win/loss system both disincentivize holding on at the end of games. You get no free point. The 1 point you'd get for the OT and/or shootout loss comes at the expense of 1 point from the win, so if you try to hold on to gain a point, you may wind up losing one.

 

[misterchainsaw]

That's my preferred way of using a 3-2-1 system. 4 on 4 is perfectly legitimate hockey. The result being somewhat illegitimate is the only reason to dock points from the winner on behalf of the loser, so that should be resolved for shootouts. Other sports don't give points to the overtime loser.

3-2-1, whether the 2+1 starts at OT or the shootout, and the straight win/loss system both disincentivize holding on at the end of games. You get no free point. The 1 point you'd get for the OT and/or shootout loss comes at the expense of 1 point from the win, so if you try to hold on to gain a point, you may wind up losing one.

What's absolutely baffling is that the NHL says they want higher scoring and less shootouts while simultaneously using a standings system that actively gives incentives to teams to a) play defensively (less total goals means a greater chance the game will be tied after a set time - in this case regulation) and b) play for overtime. And I don't buy the argument that it creates more parity - the better teams are getting these "bonus" points too, and there isn't much of a correlation between how good a team is and how good they are in a shootout. Even sudden death OT's aren't much more than a coin flip when talking about NHL caliber teams playing each other.