Post-Game Talk: Habs def. Canucks - 5-4 (SO) (Virtanen, Boeser, Horvat, Motte)

[I am toxic]

Whenever Hit the Post makes a post...somewhere in the world, a child cries.

Don't call me a child!

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

It is not a "loser" point. A game is 60 minutes. After 60 minutes the game last night was a tie so both teams deserve a point. Many soccer games, for example, end in a tie. However, the NHL has decided they want a "winner" so they play a different game from what was played for 60 minutes ( 3 vs 3) and if that does not provide a "winner" they move onto the "shootout" to arrive at that desired "winner" who, in their ultimate wisdom, they have determined, shall be rewarded with another point. A fairer system would award 3 points for a win in regulation (the amount of time a game is supposed to be), 2 points for an overtime "win" and 1 point for the tie in regulation (an overtime "loss"). The NHL has determined they do not wish this as the standings would be spread out more and this would not be beneficial for their fan base (their belief!) Somebody took to calling this a "loser" point which is unfortunate....the teams are being rewarded for actually tieing in an actual game, 5 vs 5.

I would love if the NHL went to the soccer point system, and got rid of OT other than in the playoffs. It would make winning that much more important. Would also get rid of teams playing it safe in the last 10 minutes of the third in a tie game, as there are 2 more points for winning, and no team gets an extra point for winning in OT.

 

[hookshott]

Thanks for explaining in minute detail why it’s a loser point. You get a point for losing, there is no tie in NHL hockey that offers 1 point. You get rewarded a point for an OT/SO loss .

As soon as the actual 60 minute game (the official length of a game) is over, both teams have secured a point....pretty simple. You do not get rewarded for "losing" while playing a modification of the rules, you get rewarded for tieing the official game! Sorry if you do not understand this.

 

[hookshott]

3 point system is ass just beating around the bush. you still get points for losing and now you also dont get full points for winning so it doesnt even feel like you won.

Hmm. You get full points (3) for winning the actual 60 minute game and only 2 for "winning" the modification of rules contests ( 3 on 3; shootout)....so it is actually beneficial to try to win in regulation...as opposed to what often occurs now. Tieing the 60 minute game does deserve some reward. You receive 0 points by losing in regulation (no "loser" point!) as I am sure, everybody would agree makes sense!

 

[RandV]

Thanks for explaining in minute detail why it’s a loser point. You get a point for losing, there is no tie in NHL hockey that offers 1 point. You get rewarded a point for an OT/SO loss .

It's a topic that hasn't really been worth mentioning for a long time now. The NHL had a dead puck-era problem of too many teams playing tight defensive hockey for the tie that drew many complaints. They'd trap to hold a tie in the 3rd, then trap in OT to not lose the 1 point they've earned. With the lockout reset to the cap era the implemented a number of changes to alleviate that, with the "loser point" being there to end cautious play in OT. They then went step further when they added shootouts and again with 3 on 3.

There have always been complaints but they're relatively minuscule compared to dead puck era problems and the league has never shown a desire to ease up on these changes nothings about to change any time soon. I mean people were probably talking about adopting soccer's 3-point system 15 years ago

 

[4Twenty]

Hmm. You get full points (3) for winning the actual 60 minute game and only 2 for "winning" the modification of rules contests ( 3 on 3; shootout)....so it is actually beneficial to try to win in regulation...as opposed to what often occurs now. Tieing the 60 minute game does deserve some reward. You receive 0 points by losing in regulation (no "loser" point!) as I am sure, everybody would agree makes sense!

The first tie breaker is regulation wins. That gets calculated at the end. The league likes it because idiots like Benning think they’re closer than they are.

16-16-3 appears decent and keeps fans engaged.

11-16-8 (in the old tie system) looks terrible.

 

[Javaman]

3 on 3 is just awful hockey. It's basically a practice drill. I'd rather they just go straight to the shootout.

And any team that passes it back to the goalie while outside their own zone should automatically forfeit the single point.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

It's a topic that hasn't really been worth mentioning for a long time now. The NHL had a dead puck-era problem of too many teams playing tight defensive hockey for the tie that drew many complaints. They'd trap to hold a tie in the 3rd, then trap in OT to not lose the 1 point they've earned. With the lockout reset to the cap era the implemented a number of changes to alleviate that, with the "loser point" being there to end cautious play in OT. They then went step further when they added shootouts and again with 3 on 3.

There have always been complaints but they're relatively minuscule compared to dead puck era problems and the league has never shown a desire to ease up on these changes nothings about to change any time soon. I mean people were probably talking about adopting soccer's 3-point system 15 years ago

The rule changes didn't do anything to alleviate it. If anything, the shootout made it worse as there is now a guaranteed extra point.

 

[VanJack]

3 on 3 is just awful hockey. It's basically a practice drill. I'd rather they just go straight to the shootout.

And any team that passes it back to the goalie while outside their own zone should automatically forfeit the single point.

I've watched a lot of OT games in the North Division so far this season, and I have to say for the most part they're nothing like the 'rope-a-dope' style of hockey the Canadians and Canucks play in OT.

The Habs bring the puck over the blueline, and if they're checked they just retreat to the neutral zone. Two full minutes go by with one team possessing the puck the whole time, and not even trying to score. If my team was 1-9 in OT and shootout games, I might be trying a different approach. But they show no signs of changing their approach.

And I have to say if there were fans in the building, the boo-birds would be out early. These OT games are becoming deplorable and frankly a bit of an embarrassment.

I'm all for changing the rules. For example once you bring the puck in over the blueline, teams should be forced to cycle it and at least try to score. Teams should be allowed only one or two retreats to the neutral zone before they get penalized. And goalies shouldn't be allowed to handle the puck if it is passed back to them.

I have no idea if any of this would work.....but something has to give.

.

 

[Dab]

The rule changes didn't do anything to alleviate it. If anything, the shootout made it worse as there is now a guaranteed extra point.

Watching the Habs rag the puck for the entirety of a damn 3 on 3 scrimmage should erase anyone’s idea that the structure of the OT point system encourages offence.

 

[Javaman]

I've watched a lot of OT games in the North Division so far this season, and I have to say for the most part they're nothing like the 'rope-a-dope' style of hockey the Canadians and Canucks play in OT.

The Habs bring the puck over the blueline, and if they're checked they just retreat to the neutral zone. Two full minutes go by with one team possessing the puck the whole time, and not even trying to score. If my team was 1-9 in OT and shootout games, I might be trying a different approach. But they show no signs of changing their approach.

And I have to say if there were fans in the building, the boo-birds would be out early. These OT games are becoming deplorable and frankly a bit of an embarrassment.

I'm all for changing the rules. For example once you bring the puck in over the blueline, teams should be forced to cycle it and at least try to score. Teams should be allowed only one or two retreats to the neutral zone before they get penalized. And goalies shouldn't be allowed to handle the puck if it is passed back to them.

I have no idea if any of this would work.....but something has to give.

How about, once a team crosses the centre line, any controlled retreat to the neutral zone results in a faceoff in that team's zone. Sort of a hybrid between the icing rule and basketball's 'over and back' rule.

Just spitballin' here for those who want to keep 3 v 3 in overtime.

I'm all for getting rid of it. My recollection is that 4 v 4 wasn't producing enough game winning goals, so the NHL changed it to 3 v 3. I have no idea of more games are being decided in OT instead of SO, but does it really matter? It's just not hockey. If there must be a winner, have 5 minutes of 5 v 5, then go straight to a shootout. IMO.

 

[RandV]

The rule changes didn't do anything to alleviate it. If anything, the shootout made it worse as there is now a guaranteed extra point.

I'm face palming hard on this one. If you can't understand dead puck era clutch and grab hockey being deployed in OT so you don't lose the point you've already earned to the point that some teams were getting up to 18 ties a season until the NHL decided to address it (which actually happened in 99-00, not after the lockout), then I'm not sure what to say. Unfortunately it's not like you can just google up 'boring DPE regular season OT game' to provide an example.

What you're looking at today is only starting with the introduction of 3 on 3 rules after a wacky start to it teams and players quickly learning that the best way to not get burned with repeated breakaways is to prioritize possession which when overdone kills any excitement. That's still not the same thing as dead puck era clutch and grab trap hockey.

But either way the point is that's initially why they changed the rules in 1999 adding the OT loss point, and there's been more changes since but the league's never shown any interest taking some back.

 

[RobertKron]

I'm face palming hard on this one. If you can't understand dead puck era clutch and grab hockey being deployed in OT so you don't lose the point you've already earned to the point that some teams were getting up to 18 ties a season until the NHL decided to address it (which actually happened in 99-00, not after the lockout), then I'm not sure what to say. Unfortunately it's not like you can just google up 'boring DPE regular season OT game' to provide an example.

What you're looking at today is only starting with the introduction of 3 on 3 rules after a wacky start to it teams and players quickly learning that the best way to not get burned with repeated breakaways is to prioritize possession which when overdone kills any excitement. That's still not the same thing as dead puck era clutch and grab trap hockey.

But either way the point is that's initially why they changed the rules in 1999 adding the OT loss point, and there's been more changes since but the league's never shown any interest taking some back.

The 3-on-3 is similar to Olympic-sized ice, in that people assume it'll lead to all of this run-and-gun hockey with all the extra space out there, but in reality it just means that mistakes are potentially more consequential and more difficult to recover from with more open space to defend, so teams adapt by becoming more conservative.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Watching the Habs rag the puck for the entirety of a damn 3 on 3 scrimmage should erase anyone’s idea that the structure of the OT point system encourages offence.

More teams are rethinking strategy to 3x3...Habs are the worst team at it, and all they try to do is retain possession.(I believe the teams that take the conservative approach to 3x3 usually lose it)...Last week there was game between Tampa and Chicago that had a wild 3x3...

I enjoy the 3x3..and find the SO more gimmicky, and less exciting.

 

[Peen]

The 3x3 was fantastic early on.

This 3x3 is so fkn boring. Prohibit teams from carrying the puck back out of the zone lmao

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I'm face palming hard on this one. If you can't understand dead puck era clutch and grab hockey being deployed in OT so you don't lose the point you've already earned to the point that some teams were getting up to 18 ties a season until the NHL decided to address it (which actually happened in 99-00, not after the lockout), then I'm not sure what to say. Unfortunately it's not like you can just google up 'boring DPE regular season OT game' to provide an example.

What you're looking at today is only starting with the introduction of 3 on 3 rules after a wacky start to it teams and players quickly learning that the best way to not get burned with repeated breakaways is to prioritize possession which when overdone kills any excitement. That's still not the same thing as dead puck era clutch and grab trap hockey.

But either way the point is that's initially why they changed the rules in 1999 adding the OT loss point, and there's been more changes since but the league's never shown any interest taking some back.

Agree with this. There were 2 different problems. The clutching and grabbing of the DPE isn't allowed anymore. Also, the point system itself where teams will play not to lose instead of to win in 3rd periods/OT.

 

[Clinton Comets EHL]

The old Atlantic Coast Hockey League (ACHL 1981-87) went straight to to a 5 man shootout, at least the last few years.

No one missed the OT, even 5 on 5 back then, and the shootout was very exciting at that low minor league level.

I am all for ties. 60 minute game. 2 pts for win, 1/1 for a tie, 0 for the loser. At the least, go straight to the shootout.

Agree that 3 on 3, for the most part, has become nearly unwatchable.

I understand the reason for keeping teams in playoff races, financially wise, but think things would be more entertaining.

 

[orcatown]

Agree that the movement of the puck back out of the offensive zone, sometimes all the way back to the goalie, to maintain possession is hurting the 3 on 3 - especially the way Montreal plays it.

Maybe some sort of over and back basketball type rule would help