OHL Announces 2015-16 Rule Changes

[marcusd777]

Nobody really wants to see a tie

I disagree. Nothing wrong with a tie..

What I'm not really a fan of though is the inequality of extra points handed out in games that go beyond regulation. If we have to have a winner every game using 3-on-3 or SO, I would like to see regulation wins be worth more (like a 3-point system).

 

[Nabru]

delete

 

[EON]

That is a problem in the NHL though with TV scheduling.

 

[Otto]

That is a problem in the NHL though with TV scheduling.

It has less to do with scheduling and more to do with travel arrangements

 

[RayzorIsDull]

I don't care if a game ends in a tie really. I never went to a game being upset a game ended in a tie. If you want to do 4 on 4 OT or 3 on 3 OT that's fine but award the winner of a game in regulation 3 points especially if you're going to the 2-1 point format in OT/SO. Yes that would suck for historians and record keepers because team point totals would be inflated into the 130's and such but teams should be rewarded for winning in regulation and not being rewarded the same if you win in OT or SO.

 

[SSMHoundsFan]

Saw an NHL thread dedicated to this, what is everyone's thoughts on who your team would use during the 3-on-3 OT?

I think for the Hounds, Guertler-Senyshyn-Hollowell might be one possible combo..Guertler is one of our best faceoff takers, Hollowell is probably one of our best puck-handling defensemen, and Senyshyn is one of our fastest skaters...it's the perfect tic-tac-toe play IMO

 

[OHL fan all the way]

I'd rather see the game end tied after the 3 on 3 OT ends over having a shootout.

A shootout is a terrible way to end any game. What's wrong with having a tie? We did it for how many years before the shootout?

The CHL always has to be different from other hockey leagues.

 

[PhlyerPhanatic31]

Saw one of the new rules enforced in London last night. Video goal judge made the call on the offside to negate the GWG. It was close but he was offside.

 

[EON]

I'd rather see the game end tied after the 3 on 3 OT ends over having a shootout.

A shootout is a terrible way to end any game. What's wrong with having a tie? We did it for how many years before the shootout?

The CHL always has to be different from other hockey leagues.

But this is exactly what the NHL is doing this season. They're just following the NHL's rules.

 

[Kingpin794]

I'm just going to go out and say that I absolutely hate the 3 on 3 OT thing. It's for people with attention problems. As far as viable options go for me: give me 5 on 5 until someone scores, then a tie, then a death match between goalies in the thunder dome...but by no means should 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or a shoot out be used to decide a game.

 

[Beast Mowed]

I'm just going to go out and say that I absolutely hate the 3 on 3 OT thing. It's for people with attention problems. As far as viable options go for me: give me 5 on 5 until someone scores, then a tie, then a death match between goalies in the thunder dome...but by no means should 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or a shoot out be used to decide a game.

If a team has games 3 nights in a row & the first night this happens, the team ends up worn out for the next 2 games. All good if it's not your team or players end up getting seriously hurt?

 

[Kingpin794]

If a team has games 3 nights in a row & the first night this happens, the team ends up worn out for the next 2 games. All good if it's not your team or players end up getting seriously hurt?

Like I said, let it be a tie then. All the other stuff is just junk to me.

 

[Beast Mowed]

At least there is a team credited with a win. No sense in going with the tie game. I agree to disagree.

 

[Whalers Fan]

I don't care if a game ends in a tie really. I never went to a game being upset a game ended in a tie. If you want to do 4 on 4 OT or 3 on 3 OT that's fine but award the winner of a game in regulation 3 points especially if you're going to the 2-1 point format in OT/SO. Yes that would suck for historians and record keepers because team point totals would be inflated into the 130's and such but teams should be rewarded for winning in regulation and not being rewarded the same if you win in OT or SO.

I have been a hater of the NHL's current system of awarding a "loser" point since its inception. Making every game worth 3 points is certainly much better than the current system, where some games are worth 3 points and others only 2 points. The other option (which I prefer) is to make the OT/SO really determine the winner and award 2 points to the winner and nothing to the loser. After all, baseball, basketball or football teams do not get awarded half a win for getting their games to OT.

The loser point is like the participation ribbon given to grade school kids to make them all feel like winners. Well, this is professional sports -- not grade school. Teams should not be rewarded for losing games.

 

[EvenSteven]

Saw an NHL thread dedicated to this, what is everyone's thoughts on who your team would use during the 3-on-3 OT?

I think for the Hounds, Guertler-Senyshyn-Hollowell might be one possible combo..Guertler is one of our best faceoff takers, Hollowell is probably one of our best puck-handling defensemen, and Senyshyn is one of our fastest skaters...it's the perfect tic-tac-toe play IMO

We had 3 on 3 in the home opener in Kitchener and it went on over 4 minutes or so before OS scored. What I found was that there were only 2 stoppages and therefore guys were getting gassed pretty quick. Therefore, guys were changing on the fly often and as a result, it seemed that there were more guys who saw ice time in OT than didn't. So in similar situations, teams will be forced to use more than two groups of three in the OT.