Jump to content

Thoughts on 3 on 3 overtime


REV-G

Recommended Posts

I don't know if this has been addressed in another thread, and it is still a bit early in the season but the few times the Habs have been involved in overtime this year I actually feel for the players because it seems like they are being forced to play what seems to be pond or shinny hockey.

I didn't notice it so much with the 4 on 4 overtime format because teams practice that and often during the season they play 4 on 4 during games. So they still looked organized and were playing within a system. But the 3 on 3 looks gimmicky, unprofessional and I think it is hurting hockey more than helping it. If Bettman and others in leadership want to attract US viewers I don't think the 3 on 3 is going to help. I think it's affecting hockey's image in a negative way and I can't imagine the NFL, NBA or baseball even considering doing something so amateurish looking.

When I watched our players chasing opponents after getting caught with 3 on 1's and everything so wide open with seemingly no structure it appears the games are being decided on who gets a lucky break. After watching two teams battle for 60 minutes with skill and structure and then to have the games decided on that format....to me it's a very poor reflection on the entire history and legacy of the NHL and personally I thought our players looked bad having to chase people and trying to catch up when they were caught deep and the other team was breaking out.

I hope they end it quickly and either go back to 4 on 4 or let the games end in a tie when two teams have battled so hard for 60 minutes.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God forbid we have anything in the game that lacks structure and leads to scoring chances..... I mean scoring chances suck!

Give the coaches six months and they will put in defensive systems for 3 on 3 and limit all the scoring chances... and everything will be back to normal.



To me, its crazy that we always complain about the lack of goals in a hockey game, and the defensive systems, and the neutral zone trap.... and now we finally get a chance to see what these high level athletes can do in open ice situations and immediately we think it sucks or is dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I for one tend not to complain when 'scoring is down.' I see goals-scored totals as a laughably crude indicator of entertainment value. If goals are all that count, why not remove the goalie altogether?

If we want more offence in the game, the recipe is simply to diligently call obstruction...and maybe to shrink the goalie equipment, which *is* pretty comically huge at present.

As for OT, the whole debate is difficult for me because I never really saw what was so horrible about ties. But if we really want balls-to-the-wall hockey, we should keep ties and accord them ZERO points. This would force teams to absolutely go for broke on offence in the third period, while removing any need for ridiculous 'tie-breaker' mechanisms. Nobody except me ever seems to have been persuaded by this argument, though, so I have to accept that I'm a weird-o.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been addressed in another thread, and it is still a bit early in the season but the few times the Habs have been involved in overtime this year I actually feel for the players because it seems like they are being forced to play what seems to be pond or shinny hockey.

I didn't notice it so much with the 4 on 4 overtime format because teams practice that and often during the season they play 4 on 4 during games. So they still looked organized and were playing within a system. But the 3 on 3 looks gimmicky, unprofessional and I think it is hurting hockey more than helping it. If Bettman and others in leadership want to attract US viewers I don't think the 3 on 3 is going to help. I think it's affecting hockey's image in a negative way and I can't imagine the NFL, NBA or baseball even considering doing something so amateurish looking.

When I watched our players chasing opponents after getting caught with 3 on 1's and everything so wide open with seemingly no structure it appears the games are being decided on who gets a lucky break. After watching two teams battle for 60 minutes with skill and structure and then to have the games decided on that format....to me it's a very poor reflection on the entire history and legacy of the NHL and personally I thought our players looked bad having to chase people and trying to catch up when they were caught deep and the other team was breaking out.

I hope they end it quickly and either go back to 4 on 4 or let the games end in a tie when two teams have battled so hard for 60 minutes.

What do you think?

:thumbs_up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never complained that scoring is down. I watch the game that is being played by the best players in the world. Coached by the best coaches in the world.

Idiots who run the game and only think about dollars tinker with the game constantly. But they will never be satisfied because there is always more money out there. Problem is they equate more money with more scoring. :wall:

Watched Nash beat the Sens 7-5 the other night.

Watched Kings beat Isles 2-1 next night.

Kings Isles was by far the better more enjoyable game.

12 goals in the Nashville Sens game............was or is anybody talking about like it was something special? No. Did those who did not see it miss a great game. Not particularly.

3 on 3 at best adds one goal to a game. yay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, a 1-0 game or a 2-1 game can be great.

Its not about the goals..... Its about the scoring chances.

A 1-0 game or a 2-1 game, with plenty of great chances and plenty of great saves... I enjoy that too.

A 1-0 game or a 2-1 game, with limited shots on goal, limited chances from high danger areas, lots of clutching and grabbing, and lots of safe dump it in the corner, regroup and play defensive hockey is boring

3 on 3 doesn't guarantee goals, but it does guarantee you are gonna get scoring chances, open ice, and reduces the defensive system, clutch and grab hockey.... Plus we're doing it for 5 minutes on those occassions where 60 minutes doesn't settle the games.

To me its fun to see the skill on display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of it. I might be if it were played at real speed but if it's an even breakout (2 on 2, 3 on 3), it's played at the speed of an All-Star game. That's boring. When there's an odd man rush, then they hustle but waiting for that can be dull. Is it better than a shootout? I suppose but that's a pretty low bar.

I don't know what the solution is, either. I had no issue with ties so that would be my personal preference but I'm not naive enough to think we'll be seeing those again anytime soon.

If we're tossing out crazy ideas, why not go the mini-game route as we see in the CFL and NCAA football. Each team gets a 1 minute PP, 5 on 4. If one scores and the other doesn't, game over. If not, go another round (maybe up to 3 rounds, then the shootout). That way, you're using close to half your roster and at least a PP resembles more of a typical in-game hockey situation than 3 on 3. It's still gimmicky but I think I'd prefer that to the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 on 3 is stupid, same with 4 on 4. They are stupid NHL gimmicks. Other sports don't change how things go if tied after regulation. Pretty soon the will have the best trick contest to end a game.

3 points regulation win

1 point for a tie

0 points for a loss

No overtime

This will reward teams for winning in regulation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing to 3 point win changes stats forever. 2 point win. 1 point gimmick. 0 point loss. Getting a point for losing is like CFL getting a point for missing a field goal. I don't care if IIHF does 3-2-1. I can't accept loser points. It's stupid and it's the reason teams back off in the third. As soon as the shootout came in and there was a definitive winner, the loser point should have been removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'very only seen one shootout this year, so something is right with the world. Haven't seen enough 3 on 3 to have a real opinion on it.

A cold hot dog with mustard is better than shoot out in hockey.

But then again so is a tie.

So is 4 on 4

So is 5 on 5

3 on 3 is suppose to equal quicker end. That says a lot about your game right there. "JUST END IT WOULD YA!" :flaming:

Funny the league came up with the shoot out and raved about it, as did fans at the time. Same league and same fans now rave about the 3 on 3 as a way to be RID of the shoot out they once raved about.

But they feel the need to add something . After all but taking out fighting, hitting, passion, ...whats left for the highlites.......goals. They'll do anything to get more. Powerplays are handed out for looking the wrong way at a guy now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...