NHL likely to implement shootouts, other changes

[LordHelmet]

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...

Teams that don't excel in the shootout will adjust for their weakness by being more agressive offensively so that they can get a win in regulation or OT instead of sitting back for the guaranteed point..

How is that a bad?

 

[WC Handy*]

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?

170 NHL games ended in a tie last season... meaning 14% of NHL games would be decided by individuals rather than the team.

 

[HockeyCritter]

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.

I respectfully disagree . . . . . if a player is obstructing he needs to go to the box and his team needs to be penalized while the other team receives the power play.

Sure, there will be a parade to the box for the first few games, but if the players (and fans and GMS and coaches) realize the refs are going to consistently call the obstruction penalty regardless of game, score, offender, time, or circumstance they’ll stop - - - if they don’t, they’ll be riding the pine or sent packing.

The reason previous crackdowns never stuck is because the referees were told to back off the calls because of complaints . . . . . stop complaining about the parade while the players make adjustment and once they do, there’ll be less obstruction (you’ll never totally eliminate it) and penalties will return to normal levels.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Teams that don't excel in the shootout will adjust for their weakness by being more agressive offensively so that they can get a win in regulation or OT instead of sitting back for the guaranteed point..

How is that a bad?

Because a team shouldn't have to adjust their game based on their ability to perform in what equates to a penalty shot contest...

 

[Levitate]

i don't particularly like shootouts...partly because they're not really exciting. maybe a couple of them are when both goalies are standing on their heads and making great saves, but that doesn't happen too often. but i dont' think i'll be crying about if they impliment it.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

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?

THe team that "sneaks in" now sneaks in by playing the team sport we call hockey, that's how it's different...

 

[CGG]

The lack of defensive minded players involved?

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...

I didn't make the point, someone else did. Point being that it's not entirely individual, each team uses 5 players plus a goalie in a shootout. Which is true, even if no one but the goalie is trying to stop the shooter. Geez....

 

[Brewleaguer]

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

Yes I know that, R&D to research how this rule would work in the REAL NHL, if they decide to go for it, we're getting ripped off.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

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...

They way I heard it from Tambelini is that is will go 4 on 4, then 3 on 3, then if no one scores, then it will go to a SO.
I would have to think that a 3 on 3 is going to have a goal 80% of the time, so I dont think the shootout will be as frequesnt as implied here IMO

 

[Jester]

It's also an ESPN article, who knows nothing about hockey to begin with...so we will just have to wait an see


Although everyone else is reporting it, so it's most likely true. Now lets get this pesky CBA out of the way, and things just might be looking up

that was AP out of Toronto... do you really want to bring the wrath of that city as the "center of the hockey universe" upon yourself?

 

[LordHelmet]

Oh, and on the shootout - I'm ok with it as long as shootout goals aren't counted in with a player's regular goals for the season. They should be tracked seperately for players and goalies.

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

I disagree.

Make it easier to call, it gets called more often, and the guys that do it the most see the least ice time. Make it so that the offender sits 2 minutes the first time, 4 minutes the next time, and 5 minutes every time after that. A guy who obstructs twice a period (6 times) misses 26 minutes - almost half the game..

The infraction is called, the player is penalized, but there's far less impact on the game than if the opponents are awarded 4 power plays..

 

[WC Handy*]

Yes I know that, R&D to research how this rule would work in the REAL NHL, if they decide to go for it, we're getting ripped off.

No. That is not something the league is considering. The scrimagges are being done that way to see the rules in various different setups. That is all.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Teams that don't excel in the shootout will adjust for their weakness by being more agressive offensively so that they can get a win in regulation or OT instead of sitting back for the guaranteed point..

How is that a bad?

Because a team shouldn't have to adjust their game based on their ability to perform in what equates to a penalty shot contest...

Then shouldn't the team be more concerned with trying to win the game in regulation? Isn't that the ultimate goal anyway, to win in regulation and earn two points?

Because a team may or may not have an advantage in a shootout should not be a reason to remove the shootout. How is having an advantage in a shootout any different than having an advantage because you have a 50-goal scorer or a multi-Venzia winning goalie? Every team has some advantage over another team in one area.

Furthermore, any team can beat another team on any single day. Perhaps your team has a strong skilled set of forwards and mine has just an average goalie. It is just possible that my team could win the shootout because your goalie had to face 40 SOG while mine faced only 25.

 

[HockeyCritter]

THe team that "sneaks in" now sneaks in by playing the team sport we call hockey, that's how it's different...

So what were the teams doing for 65 minutes?

 

[Brewleaguer]

No. That is not something the league is considering. The scrimagges are being done that way to see the rules in various different setups. That is all.

Based on the NHL.com artical

"The NHL has enlisted the help of over-age junior and college players to test out a variety of rules and equipment changes with an eye on how they will affect the game. The open-minded nature has everyone thinking about the alternative and permutations that can result in even the slightest change."

They ARE looking at it by using it in this camp. Not saying it will be reality, but could be considered. Along with others

 

[Montrealer]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[Mothra]

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...

But when you say "alienate" I think you mean that these fans will stop watching. Is that what you mean?

I also doubt that 2-3 playoff spots will be unjustly determined because of shootouts....I just cant follow that logic. To me it seems like the more skilled teams (be it at forward or in net) will be the better teams at shootouts, just makes sense.....so you are saying that these teams, that are most likely more skilled, will be behind a couple less skilled teams after an 80+ game regular season in normal situations....but because of a shootout system they will leapfrog these less skilled teams who are ahead in the standings.....that doesnt make sense to me. I am not denying that a team now and then may make it to the postseason because of a great shootout record enabling them to jump past a team that had a poor one....but 2-3? that means 4-6 teams are affected and that seems a bit dramatic. Not to mention that if they are so close in the standings that the shootout success/lack of is the deciding factor after a loooong season....I think its safe to say that the teams were very much equal anyway

 

[Mothra]

Make it easier to call, it gets called more often, and the guys that do it the most see the least ice time. Make it so that the offender sits 2 minutes the first time, 4 minutes the next time, and 5 minutes every time after that. A guy who obstructs twice a period (6 times) misses 26 minutes - almost half the game..

The infraction is called, the player is penalized, but there's far less impact on the game than if the opponents are awarded 4 power plays..

The problem with that is this.....whats called obstruction one time can just be a hook another time....and so on....I realize that obstruction is/should be calls away from the puck, but its always a judgement call

just call obstruction and have 20 PP's a game until the players/coaches realize its there to stay

 

[Chili]

Shootouts are forcing a result to a game.

I'd like to see a more exciting style of hockey but this does nothing for the 60-65 minutes of play.

Fix the game please, not the result.

The Swedish Elite League dumped shootouts and I'll count the days until they are removed from the NHL.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

But when you say "alienate" I think you mean that these fans will stop watching. Is that what you mean?
I also doubt that 2-3 playoff spots will be unjustly determined because of shootouts....I just cant follow that logic. To me it seems like the more skilled teams (be it at forward or in net) will be the better teams at shootouts, just makes sense.....so you are saying that these teams, that are most likely more skilled, will be behind a couple less skilled teams after an 80+ game regular season in normal situations....but because of a shootout system they will leapfrog these less skilled teams who are ahead in the standings.....that doesnt make sense to me. I am not denying that a team now and then may make it to the postseason because of a great shootout record enabling them to jump past a team that had a poor one....but 2-3? that means 4-6 teams are affected and that seems a bit dramatic. Not to mention that if they are so close in the standings that the shootout success/lack of is the deciding factor after a loooong season....I think its safe to say that the teams were very much equal anyway

To confirm, are you trying to be cute in suggesting I can't convey my message?? Not agreeing with someone doesn't mean you have to be mean??

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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...

We're you offended when they instituted overtime? That was a bastardization of the original game. Were you offended when they instituted five minutes of 4-on-4 OT? That was a major bastardization of the game. How about when goaltenders instituted the cheater? How about when they started to allow the forward pass? How about lifties? All of these changes are bastardizations of the original game. Are you not offended by them as well?

It seems to me that people confuse the tradition of the game with the natural evolution of the game. I don't see a problem with the NHL trying anything that is not a complete change in the way the game is played, say allowing the goaltenders to dress like the Michelin Man. Heck, even some of the changes to the forward pass rules (the Sinden/Bowman lines) are pretty interesting and would not really change the intergity of the sport. I don't get it when people complain about changes that are a natural progression to make the game more exciting. Its a conundrum that I am sure baffles the power that be as well.

 

[Mothra]

To confirm, are you trying to be cute in suggesting I can't convey my message?? Not agreeing with someone doesn't mean you have to be mean??

I am not trying to be mean at all....and didnt even think it came off that way. Sorry if it did

To me "alienate" means to dissociate or turn away...I am unsure what you meant when you said that. I have asked a couple times and, unless I missed it, you havent really given an answer.

do you think real hockey fans will dissociate themselves from hockey if there is a shootout? I can understand them not liking it....but IMO I cant see one real fan leaving the arena or turning the channel when the shootouts start.....much less just turing their back on the game and watching something else all together

 

[barnburner]

I think that the solution should be that the player sits the whole two minutes and no icing during the PK, that way coaches will refrain from pushing the obstruction game.

I agree. I've been pushing that idea for some time. Not only will it put pressure on teams to stop the obstruction - it will make power plays more effective, provide more puck control, quality scoring chances, and more scoring - in short more excitement and entertainment for the fan without totally changing the game into somthing like the (ugh) NBA.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

We're you offended when they instituted overtime? That was a bastardization of the original game. Were you offended when they instituted five minutes of 4-on-4 OT? That was a major bastardization of the game. How about when goaltenders instituted the cheater? How about when they started to allow the forward pass? How about lifties? All of these changes are bastardizations of the original game. Are you not offended by them as well?

It seems to me that people confuse the tradition of the game with the natural evolution of the game. I don't see a problem with the NHL trying anything that is not a complete change in the way the game is played, say allowing the goaltenders to dress like the Michelin Man. Heck, even some of the changes to the forward pass rules (the Sinden/Bowman lines) are pretty interesting and would not really change the intergity of the sport. I don't get it when people complain about changes that are a natural progression to make the game more exciting. Its a conundrum that I am sure baffles the power that be as well.

I think that the irony in your post is that those were all natural evolutions of the actual game- the shootout is a totally separate entity from the game..

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I am not trying to be mean at all....and didnt even think it came off that way. Sorry if it did

To me "alienate" means to dissociate or turn away...I am unsure what you meant when you said that. I have asked a couple times and, unless I missed it, you havent really given an answer.

do you think real hockey fans will dissociate themselves from hockey if there is a shootout? I can understand them not liking it....but IMO I cant see one real fan leaving the arena or turning the channel when the shootouts start.....much less just turing their back on the game and watching something else all together

Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep you on my christmas card list

Honestly, I would turn off the television when a shootout came on. If it couldn't be decided via a team contest I don't care who wins after that point. Yes, i do believe there are those who will be turned off and away by this development..