Idea for OT

[daver]

I think the majority dislike the concept of three points being awarded when a game goes to OT and that going back to the original OT format would see teams playing safe in OT to make sure they get a point.

An alternative format which would decide a winner in a less gimmicky way than 3 on 3 or a shootout.

In OT, each team would get a chance to win the game on the PP. If both teams score or both teams do not score, it then goes to a sudden death format. The team that scored first in regulation would get the first crack at it. Maybe they get two or three chances each before the game is declared a tie.

Click to read more...

 

[Murzu]

I'd rather keep it the way it is.

Or actually, I'd rather see 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for OT/SO win, 1 point for OT/SO loss and 0 points for regulation loss while keeping OT 3vs3 and SO after that if the game is still tied.

 

[daver]

I'd rather keep it the way it is.

Or actually, I'd rather see 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for OT/SO win, 1 point for OT/SO loss and 0 points for regulation loss while keeping OT 3vs3 and SO after that if the game is still tied.

The only reason an extra point was brought in was to try to get give teams incentive to win in OT rather than play it safe for a point. The complaint before any changes were made was that teams were playing it safe late in regulation time in order to get a tie rather than go for the win. I would argue that there is now an even bigger incentive to play it safe in regulation as you would have a chance to get two points in OT without risking the one point you get for a tie.

 

[Spirit of 67]

An alternative format which would decide a winner in a less gimmicky way than 3 on 3 or a shootout.

 

[maacoshark]

Just get rid of ot

 

[Phil McKraken]

Just make it 1 point for a win and 0 for a loss, regardless of the game format. That way we won't have to hear about teams losing 12 of their last 20 games games and wonder how many points they got from that.

 

[pheasant]

A change isn't needed.

 

[Echo Roku]

Current system isn’t based on there being a number of points awarded from a pool of points

It just describes how well a team did by the result of a game. Points are just how that is measured.

It doesn’t matter if there are three points or two points between the teams at the end.

People should stop whining on this subject. It’s fine as it is

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think the majority dislike the concept of three points being awarded when a game goes to OT and that going back to the original OT format would see teams playing safe in OT to make sure they get a point.

An alternative format which would decide a winner in a less gimmicky way than 3 on 3 or a shootout.

In OT, each team would get a chance to win the game on the PP. If both teams score or both teams do not score, it then goes to a sudden death format. The team that scored first in regulation would get the first crack at it. Maybe they get two or three chances each before the game is declared a tie.

But... you're just adding another gimmick?

 

[StoneHands]

4 on 4 for 5 minutes and then unplug the clock and go 3 on 3 until there's a winner.

 

[MNNumbers]

We just had a LONG thread on points systems. This falls into the same category....

All are brought on by the question:
How should a regular season game end, given that neither the players nor the broadcasters see any reason for an overtime that lasts until someone scores???

One angle of that question goes like this: Any system to guarantee a winner is not REAL 5v5 hockey, so it shouldn't be treated the same as 5v5 hockey. Thus, lots of different points systems.

Another angle goes like this: Which method of NOT REALLY PLAYING 5v5 HOCKEY is the best employed to get a winner?

All such questions really come down to some fans' opinions.

Me? I just want somewhat exciting play, so the current OT rules are fine by. I would change the point system, but in the end, it doesn't make much difference, really.

 

[Butch 19]

OT & SO is fine as it is.

 

[daver]

If people want to keep things the way they are now, I would suggest getting rid of the loser point.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

If people want to keep things the way they are now, I would suggest getting rid of the loser point.

FFS, ITS NOT A DAMN LOSER POINT.

BOTH teams get 1 point at the end of regulation...the OT/SO winner gets awarded a 2nd point.

 

[Nizdizzle]

FFS, ITS NOT A DAMN LOSER POINT.

BOTH teams get 1 point at the end of regulation...the OT/SO winner gets awarded a 2nd point.

One team gets a point in a game where they lost. The winning team gets the same amount of points they would normally get for winning a game.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The only reason an extra point was brought in was to try to get give teams incentive to win in OT rather than play it safe for a point. The complaint before any changes were made was that teams were playing it safe late in regulation time in order to get a tie rather than go for the win. I would argue that there is now an even bigger incentive to play it safe in regulation as you would have a chance to get two points in OT without risking the one point you get for a tie.

Hockey is a conservative sport. In 81-82, Gretzky scored 92 goals, the Oilers had a +122 goal differential, and they had 15 ties. They beat teams by an average of 1.5 goals per game, had only 17 losses, but still had 15 ties after 60 minutes.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

5 minute 3 on 3

4 minute 2 on 2

2 minute 1 on 1

1 minute 0 on 0 where the goalies try to score

Each player picks the best fighter, whoever wins the brawl gets judged on a 10 point must system and that will be the winner of the game, if the fight is a draw then

5 minute pie eating contest. If still tied then

Spelling Bee

Should help us settle a winner once and for all, no loser points.

 

[Butch 19]

One team gets a point in a game where they lost. The winning team gets the same amount of points they would normally get for winning a game.

They (both teams) were already awarded the point before OT started.

After a team lost in OT / SO, no point was awarded to them

 

[Nizdizzle]

They (both teams) were already awarded the point before OT started.

After a team lost in OT / SO, no point was awarded to them

Its semantics on when the point was awarded. A team received a point in a game where they lost.

EDIT: Is it actually in the rules that teams are both awarded a point when regulation ends? That just seems to be something made up to rationalize it, at least IMO.

 

[OkimLom]

Its semantics on when the point was awarded. A team received a point in a game where they lost.

EDIT: Is it actually in the rules that teams are both awarded a point when regulation ends? That just seems to be something made up to rationalize it, at least IMO.

I believe the teams do get a point when regulation ends if tied, but a team can lose the point if they decide to pull the goaltender in OT and get scored on.

 

[Nizdizzle]

I believe the teams do get a point when regulation ends if tied, but a team can lose the point if they decide to pull the goaltender in OT and get scored on.

Hmm, that doesn't sound right to me. Where did you get this from?

 

[OkimLom]

Hmm, that doesn't sound right to me. Where did you get this from?

I heard it watching a game, I'll try to look this up to see what I can find to confirm.

Found it, though it's from 2015-2016, so not sure if it still applies:

Board of Governors approves 2015-16 rules changes

5. Clubs who pull their goaltender for an extra attacker during the overtime period (other than on a delayed penalty) will be subject to the potential forfeiture of their one (1) point earned for the tie at the end of regulation in the event the opposing team scores into the empty net.

 

[Echo Roku]

Its semantics on when the point was awarded. A team received a point in a game where they lost.

EDIT: Is it actually in the rules that teams are both awarded a point when regulation ends? That just seems to be something made up to rationalize it, at least IMO.

Logically it’s a tie that has an OT period to award another point.

FYI, it’s just as easy to say those that say the opposite are rationalizing their disdain for it. I seriously doubt almost anyone who talks about it actually knows the rules that well

 

[Otto]

10 minutes 4 on 4... if it's tied it's tied. 2 points for a win 1 for a tie 0 for a loss

 

[Nizdizzle]

I heard it watching a game, I'll try to look this up to see what I can find to confirm.

Found it, though it's from 2015-2016, so not sure if it still applies:

Board of Governors approves 2015-16 rules changes

Huh, you learn something every day. Thanks for the link.