Both IIHF rule changes were a failure

[Chimpradamus]

1. The seeded spots in the semi finals: What for? It only enhances a possible disproportion how strong the groups are. Why change something that works? I don't get it.

2. 3 on 3 hockey: A total circus. It's not hockey. Ok for 4 on 4, but why 3 on 3, on big ice? What the hell? Why not just go 2 on 2 or 1 on 1 while you're at it? Maybe the goalies can play against eachother, with tubas and trumpets. I say that's a stupid idea taken from the NHL entertainment circus, certainly not appropriate for an actual sports tournament. It's more tight when you play in a bathtub, even though it still looks ridiculous, because Americans can't handle ties.

I get they want to remove the chance of shootouts, but come on, have some respect left for the sport. 3 on 3 is just as much of a coin flip as a shootout. The seeded playoff positions were just a shrug towards the worse.

How about no seeded garbage and 4 on 4 for 10 minutes, then 3 on 3 until one team wins? Away with the ridiculous shootouts.

Click to read more...

 

[Star Ocean]

I agree. 3 on 3 hockey in important games is a joke.

 

[baronsforever]

I am not sure I understand your comment about the semi's re-seeding. It had no effect at all this year, the match ups remained the same as they would have been in previous years anyway. It is designed to enhance the importance of playing well in the preliminary round, and remove doubts about "finding an easier path" to the final.

 

[garbageteam]

The re-seeding doesn't really make a difference. The 3-on-3 though is completely pointless - I agree with changing it to 4 on 4.

 

[Albatros]

4-on-4 equals more shootouts, thus better 3-on-3 even if it has its issues too. These changes were improvements, albeit minor.

 

[Artemia]

I just want ties back for regular games. Hate shootouts and overtime.