Pulling the goalie in 3on3 OT for an extra skater

[Stewie Griffin]

Maybe Arizona will.
Coach: "Damnit we earned a point, better make sure it's not 2"

 

[tarheelhockey]

That is literally the dumbest rule I've ever encountered.

It's a vestige from the early 00s when there was an OTL point in play, but games still ended in ties. AHL teams figured out that there was no reason not to pull the goalie in OT, and it turned OT into a circus. The NHL saw what was about to happen and went ahead with a pro-active rule change that still exists.

I don't have an issue with it, TBH. It's ludicrous to have an OT game end with an ENG, so coaches should not be introducing that possibility except in very extreme circumstances.

 

[Amazinmets73]

It would have to be extreme circumstances (e.g a team needing a win to make playoffs). It's more tempting due to the 3 vs 3 format, as an extra skater is for more advantageous than 5 vs 5.

 

[Avs2022]

It happened to Colorado. They needed to win in OT to preserve their division win streak. They ended up winning in OT against Anaheim. I was at that game.

I was at the game also. I posted more details above in this thread.

 

[Doctor No]

It led to Antero Niittymaki scoring a shorthanded overtime goal in 2004, so it's not a dumb rule.

 

[treple13]

It's a vestige from the early 00s when there was an OTL point in play, but games still ended in ties. AHL teams figured out that there was no reason not to pull the goalie in OT, and it turned OT into a circus. The NHL saw what was about to happen and went ahead with a pro-active rule change that still exists.

I don't have an issue with it, TBH. It's ludicrous to have an OT game end with an ENG, so coaches should not be introducing that possibility except in very extreme circumstances.

To be fair, it's also ludicrous for OT to end in a shootout, but most of us are desensitized to that by now

 

[Voight]

IIRC Dallas - maybe 6 or 7 years ago? Was playing a win-and-your-in game on the last day of the seasons and pulled their goalie in OT? Or maybe it was just something mentioned that they could do if the situation arises?

 

[cyris]

I thought many of you hated the loser point. Isn't that why there's been a cry to migrate towards a 3 point system?

In theory... Face of winning team brings puck behind net as goalie skates off. Then attacks on a 4 on 3. I could see it being effective or jarring when you've never faced it before.

Just because you don’t like the loser point doesn’t mean you should be okay with your team potentially forfeiting it.

 

[crazy8888]

If a team is in a situation where going to shootout means their playoff hopes are done then i do not see a logical reason to not pull the goalie. Otherwise why would anybody do it? You mentioned Fedorov did it twice already, what were the circumstances?

 

[Jumptheshark]

If the team pulling the goalie gets scored upon in ot they lose the loser point

 

[91Fedorov91]

Probably already mentioned, but Sergei Fedorov pulled the goalie twice in OT for Cska Moscow and won both games.

 

[ItWasJustified]

It's ludicrous to have an OT game end with an ENG

Huh?

 

[Kshahdoo]

It's actually a smart rule so stupid ideas like this one aren't realized.

Yeah, the more shoot outs the better for the league.

 

[Matty Sundin]

This only makes sense if near end of season and need pts and behind on ROW.

Maybe if you had 2 man advantage and really trusted your PP but if you get scored on then you really look stupid.

 

[FiveTacos]

It would be awesome if both teams needed to win in OT ... 4 on 4 with no goalies?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Huh?

*louder*

It’s ludicrous to have an OT game end in an ENG.

 

[starling]

*louder*

It’s ludicrous to have an OT game end in an ENG.

At least it's hockey. Shootouts, on the other hand, not so much.

 

[tarheelhockey]

At least it's hockey. Shootouts, on the other hand, not so much.

How is shooting the puck into an empty net more “hockey” than shooting it past a goalie?

 

[ItWasJustified]

*louder*

It’s ludicrous to have an OT game end in an ENG.

How did you come to that conclusion? An empty net goal is as valid in every period of a hockey game.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

I could see this situation arise if you need the ROW in a play-in game. That’s about it though.

 

[tarheelhockey]

How did you come to that conclusion? An empty net goal is as valid in every period of a hockey game.

It’s self-evident. Imagine being in the building when your team pulls the goalie in OT and then allows a goal from the other end of the ice.

It makes a farce out of OT, which is supposed to be one of the most competitive and dramatic experiences in sports.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It's a vestige from the early 00s when there was an OTL point in play, but games still ended in ties. AHL teams figured out that there was no reason not to pull the goalie in OT, and it turned OT into a circus. The NHL saw what was about to happen and went ahead with a pro-active rule change that still exists.

I don't have an issue with it, TBH. It's ludicrous to have an OT game end with an ENG, so coaches should not be introducing that possibility except in very extreme circumstances.

What's wrong with the circus?

 

[ItWasJustified]

It’s self-evident. Imagine being in the building when your team pulls the goalie in OT and then allows a goal from the other end of the ice.

It makes a farce out of OT, which is supposed to be one of the most competitive and dramatic experiences in sports.

Hockey is not American wrestling. You play to win, not to entertain. If the coach thinks that the best chance to win in OT is to pull the goalie, he should be able to pull the goalie.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Hockey is not American wrestling. You play to win, not to entertain. If the coach thinks that the best chance to win in OT is to pull the goalie, he should be able to pull the goalie.

He is able to pull the goalie. There’s just not an incentive for doing it.

 

[JustAHabFan]

Last game of the season and the team need a win to qualify for the playoff. They will pull the goalie with a couple minutes left in OT.