Go Wings
Registered User
No nobody wants stupid ties.
Just make it 3 on 3 until someone scores, it is as simple as that.
Post-Game Talk: Sabres
- Thread starter SoupNazi
- Start date
Just make it 3 on 3 until someone scores, it is as simple as that.
OgeeOgelthorpe
Baldina
- Feb 29, 2020
- 17,212
- 18,334
My argument against the 3 on 3 is that whoever wins the initial faceoff holds possession for 4 out of 5 minutes.
Sudden death is fine. Bring back 4 on 4 because 5 on 5 OT is too often a grind. Make it 10 minutes. If no score then go to 3 on 3.
Lazlo Hollyfeld
The jersey ad still sucks
- Mar 4, 2004
- 28,616
- 27,071
I know it'll never happen, but I want stupid ties.
3 on 3 and the shootout involves so many problems. Games not being worth the same number of points. In the third period, it Incentivizes teams to play to get to OT to pick up the loser point, then try and get the second point in OT or shootout. With the evolution of strategies in the shootout, it's become even farther away from anything resembling hockey. Even 3 on 3 has had the fun coached out of it.
I'm an old man yelling at clouds, I know. But I watched 20 years of great hockey that had ties. If no one deserved to win the game, they didn't.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,221
- 13,752
The problem lies in the fact that ties are wholly antithesis to the concept of competition. There should be a winner and a loser. Every contest needs a resolution.
Lazlo Hollyfeld
The jersey ad still sucks
- Mar 4, 2004
- 28,616
- 27,071
There's 70 years of NHL hockey that beg to differ.
An arbitrary skill event deciding a winner and loser is the antithesis of hockey. And awarding a point to a team that lost the game is antithetical to the concept of competition (I don't care what pretzel logic people use, the team that did not win the game gets a point). The team did not win the game but can still move up in the standings.
The regular season is ultimately about getting into the playoffs, where all games end with a winner and a loser to get the ultimate trophy. Some ties in an 82 game season isn't the end of the world.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,221
- 13,752
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,037
- 11,732
Neither are some shootouts. And I sincerely disagree with the idea a shootout is the "antithesis" of hockey.
Honestly, I hate ties. Such a monumentally boring way to end a hockey game.
Last edited:
Lazlo Hollyfeld
The jersey ad still sucks
- Mar 4, 2004
- 28,616
- 27,071
ok maybe antithesis is too strong but they're so far removed from the team sport that is hockey.
Especially as players have figured out they can come to a near stop, stickhandle a hundred times and deke the goalie in a way they never possible could in a hockey game.
Like I said, I know this is old man yelling at clouds. But all the machinations to get rid of ties have a lot of negative side effects.
Go Wings
Registered User
Thats fine as long as we keep playing until someone wins in OT. No more shootouts.
Since 3 on 3 with one team holding the puck is already boring, why not add a 1 minute shot clock? What's a stoppage and a face-off going to ruin?
DamonDRW
Registered User
Didn't you think that this is a natural when teams and their efforts are equal? Why do you need lottery to artificially decide an event?
I like 3 on 3 and I like shootouts. The game is so overcoached now that I find it refreshing when teams are actually trying to score. Shootouts are good because you rarely see breakaways now. And having ties would be horrible because every team will pay to not lose in OT
Lazlo Hollyfeld
The jersey ad still sucks
- Mar 4, 2004
- 28,616
- 27,071
3 on 3 definitely needs something. I'd be more inclined to use the "no backing across the center line once you enter the zone" rule because it's more in the universe of hockey than a shot clock.
AlwaysSunnyInDetroit
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2021
- 617
- 852
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,037
- 11,732
I think a difference of one point in a game isn't enough to break my hockey immersion, if that is what you are asking.
Again, I think ending in a tie sucks and is boring. I would rather they flip a coin at the end than go back to ties.
TheOtherOne
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2010
- 8,274
- 5,272
Over and back at the blue lines is already sort of part of the game.
Once you enter the zone, you naturally try to keep the puck in the zone. Failing that in regular time just means you have to back up and start over and the other team has a chance to forecheck hard.
In OT you'd have the same idea, once you enter the zone you try to keep it in. Only difference is if you fail here, it results in an icing-like faceoff.
I think it's a very small leap which will give obvious positive results.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 15,936
- 10,480
Just say you can't control the puck into the offensive zone and pass or control it back out without losing control to the other team first. You do, I like the idea it is blown dead with a faceoff in the offending teams end. Nobody wants to see players skate in and skate out with the puck and do nothing with it and the NHL should know this. Frankly those at games should be booing any time either team does this.
That said ties in the regular season don't bother me that much. I am much more bothered by a team losing a hockey game and then getting any pts, don't care when or how they lost, they lost! You win, you get 2 pts, you lose, you get 0. Standings would be super simple and easy to understand for those who don't follow the game much.
That said ties in the regular season don't bother me that much. I am much more bothered by a team losing a hockey game and then getting any pts, don't care when or how they lost, they lost! You win, you get 2 pts, you lose, you get 0. Standings would be super simple and easy to understand for those who don't follow the game much.
