NHL likely to implement shootouts, other changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYRGoalieGlut*

Guest
BTW, not that I'm a big fan and it's probably PR and a spin but Milbury said that "the fans want it", that might not mean anything, but maybe they know this stuff from some places like surveys.
 

broman

Registered User
Mar 9, 2003
1,508
41
HEL's antechamber
What's wrong with a tie anyway? It's as fair a result as any. A penalty shootout is a lottery at best and as some already pointed out, it's dead against the team sport concept.

Soccer folks hate shootouts too, it's no way to decide a hard fought game. If you want to encourage teams to go for a win bring in another soccer trick, the three point rule. Three points for the winner, whether in OT or regulation. Loser gets nothing. Zilch. Nada. Simple as that.

Definitely get rid of the OTL consolation point. There's no reason to award the team for 60 mins of backtracking, or even a last-grasp equalizer. Good work sure, but you're only halfway there. The job is not finished.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Chock Full Of Booger said:
No, it won't. It'll take all of ONE game before some short-sighted chumps in the media, the front offices, and here online will be whining over-officiating.
It took the players trying the proposal only 8 minutes to figure this out after there were 8 penalties in 8 minutes. After that, the penalties were back to a normal level.

One can only conclude that NHL players have the IQ of a brick if they continue to foul game after game.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Patman said:
ONLY in single elimination cup rounds. I'd figure there is 1 shootout for every 2000 professional matches in the world.

Real frequent.
Youre talking total bollocks, they are very frequent in competitions that allow them, ie knockout cups only and not in the league.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
PepNCheese said:
Shootouts are stupid. Hockey is supremely a team sport and to have to face the possibility of losing home ice advantage or a division title, or even miss the playoffs entirely over a shootout is just ridiculous.
Hey, guess how many players are involved in a shootout? 5 skaters and a goalie. Now how many are on the ice normally?

4 on 4 OT is less of a team game than a shootout.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Steve L said:
Hey, guess how many players are involved in a shootout? 5 skaters and a goalie. Now how many are on the ice normally?

4 on 4 OT is less of a team game than a shootout.

Hey, guess how many defensemen are involved in a shootout? None. How many are on the ice normally?
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
Hey, guess how many defensemen are involved in a shootout? None. How many are on the ice normally?
Not always. Those with some bit of offensive talent like Niedermayer and Gonchar will probably get involved quite often. James Sanford was the Hamilton Bulldogs' secret shootout weapon this year, he played D. And they tapped Ray Bourque on the shoulder ahead of Wayne to take the shootout in 1998.

Quite often in 4-on-4 OT or on a regular 5-on-4 PP you only see one defenseman on the ice, I haven't heard them complaining yet.
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
PepNCheese said:
Shootouts are stupid. Hockey is supremely a team sport and to have to face the possibility of losing home ice advantage or a division title, or even miss the playoffs entirely over a shootout is just ridiculous.


Oh please.

I think we should bring back the rover position to placate fans like you, and also we should lose the arenas and play on open ice like our great-great-grandfathers used to.
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
Chock Full Of Booger said:
Whatever. Shootouts = ties = slapping each other in the nuts until someone pukes to determine who wins. If neither team is better at playing regulation hockey, you have to do something. You can say, "okay, no one wins, that was fun," which in my view is no more stupid than saying, "okay, shoot the puck until the score is uneven."

Excellent.

As another point, NFL football's OT system is even stupider, no? One team wins a coin flip and is a 3 or 4 to 1 favourite to win?
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Bring Back Bucky said:
Great idea, the shootout. Hey, after a full year of a lockout, why not alienate the traditional hockey fan a little more?? I mean, who needs the longtime hockey fan when you're already packing 11,000 people a night into plenty of venues?? :dunno:

I dont get this mindset.....not that I am in favor of a shootout, but I sure as hell wont feel "alienated" if it comes to be....If any hockey fan stops watching because of shootouts.....I doubt they are a real fan to begin with
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
Mothra said:
I dont get this mindset.....not that I am in favor of a shootout, but I sure as hell wont feel "alienated" if it comes to be....If any hockey fan stops watching because of shootouts.....I doubt they are a real fan to begin with


I doubt that real fans have any interest in the outcome of a hockey game being decided this way. Look how close playoff races are in the 30 team NHL. THe shootout would determine who gets in and who doesn't for the last 2-3 slots, and that just doesn't wash with me...
 

WC Handy*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Not always. Those with some bit of offensive talent like Niedermayer and Gonchar will probably get involved quite often. James Sanford was the Hamilton Bulldogs' secret shootout weapon this year, he played D. And they tapped Ray Bourque on the shoulder ahead of Wayne to take the shootout in 1998.

I would have liked to have thing that most people would have ben smart enough to realize I was referring to actual defeneders, not the position on the backs of these guys hockey cards.

Quite often in 4-on-4 OT or on a regular 5-on-4 PP you only see one defenseman on the ice, I haven't heard them complaining yet.

Because that's a coaches descision. And, I guarantee you there were people here complaining about going to 4 on 4 when the rule was instituted.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
WVpens said:

Also saw this for proposed rule changes. (not sure if this was posted already)

"Each game will have three, 15-minute periods. Once concluded, there will be an additional five minutes of 4-on-4 followed by five more minutes of 3-on-3, which is then concluded by a five-man shootout"

OK so they jip us out of a season of hockey and now they want to jib us out of 15 minutes per game if it doesn't end in a tie.
AND if it does end in a tie, you still loose 5 minutes of the game.

BOY are they really out of touch with fans! :madfire:
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
Shootout: It's coming. I like it. How is a tie a better for the fans than a shootout? If you're such a 'hardcore' fan then why are you talking about leaving the sport over a trivial matter? Relax.. It'll be ok..

Obstruction: The reason obstruction isn't called is because refs don't want to be seen as deciding the game with their whistle. They don't want to call a potentially game-deciding power play late in the game for something that happens away from the puck.

The solution is to have a less severe penalty for obstruction. Take the offender off the ice for two minutes, but remove the change in manpower. This allows refs to make the call without awarding a power play that decides the game. Repeat offenders are taken off the ice, get less ice time, and become less valuable to fans & coaches. This drives their salaries down.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Brewleaguer said:
Also saw this for proposed rule changes. (not sure if this was posted already)

"Each game will have three, 15-minute periods. Once concluded, there will be an additional five minutes of 4-on-4 followed by five more minutes of 3-on-3, which is then concluded by a five-man shootout"

OK so they jip us out of a season of hockey and now they want to jib us out of 15 minutes per game if it doesn't end in a tie.
AND if it does end in a tie, you still loose 5 minutes of the game.

BOY are they really out of touch with fans! :madfire:

Yea... except that was a description of the R&D camp scrimmages and has nothing to do with any real NHL game.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
I would have liked to have thing that most people would have ben smart enough to realize I was referring to actual defeneders, not the position on the backs of these guys hockey cards.
There are a bunch of forwards who are defensive-minded or have zero offensive talent who will be excluded from the shootout too. Enforcers rarely even touch the ice in the 3rd period, and never in OT, they won't be taking too many shootout shots either.

I'm not a huge fan of the shootout, but I really won't object if it happens. The lack of defensive-minded players involved is not a decent enough excuse to not do it. If teams start replacing a goon on their 4th line with a talented but smallish or defensively-suspect forward just for the PP and shootouts, that's one of the best things that could happen to hockey, IMO.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
EndBoards said:
Shootout: It's coming. I like it. How is a tie a better for the fans than a shootout? If you're such a 'hardcore' fan then why are you talking about leaving the sport over a trivial matter? Relax.. It'll be ok..

Even those of us that hate the idea aren't going to leave the sport. That's why it will be in place.

Obstruction: The reason obstruction isn't called is because refs don't want to be seen as deciding the game with their whistle. They don't want to call a potentially game-deciding power play late in the game for something that happens away from the puck.

Quite a few NHL refs do everything they can to be the star of the game.

The solution is to have a less severe penalty for obstruction. Take the offender off the ice for two minutes, but remove the change in manpower. This allows refs to make the call without awarding a power play that decides the game. Repeat offenders are taken off the ice, get less ice time, and become less valuable to fans & coaches. This drives their salaries down.

The answer to cutting down obstruction isn't to make the penalty less severe.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Bring Back Bucky said:
I doubt that real fans have any interest in the outcome of a hockey game being decided this way. Look how close playoff races are in the 30 team NHL. THe shootout would determine who gets in and who doesn't for the last 2-3 slots, and that just doesn't wash with me...
How is that any difference than any other season when a team or two "sneaks" in or is left on the outside looking in because they tied a game or two??

If it is that much of a concern to teams, perhaps they should, oh I don't know, try to actually win the game in regulation instead of forcing a tie.

And for all this b****ing and moaning about shootouts, it only happens if a game is tied after the OT period is played . . . . does anyone have the statisical break down what percentage of games actually went to a shootout?
 

WC Handy*

Guest
gc2005 said:
There are a bunch of forwards who are defensive-minded or have zero offensive talent who will be excluded from the shootout too. Enforcers rarely even touch the ice in the 3rd period, and never in OT, they won't be taking too many shootout shots either.

I'm not a huge fan of the shootout, but I really won't object if it happens. The lack of defensive-minded players involved is not a decent enough excuse to not do it. If teams start replacing a goon on their 4th line with a talented but smallish or defensively-suspect forward just for the PP and shootouts, that's one of the best things that could happen to hockey, IMO.

The lack of defensive minded players involved? :biglaugh:

You might want to go up and read my post again, buddy. The point you made was a dumb one about how there are still 5 players and a goalie on the ice. The point I made was simply that there are no defenders on the ice to defend the player taking the shot. Geez...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->