RobRock

Yup, that's the way to go. I don't know of any other major North American sport that has ties in it's record keeping. I expect that, in a few years, the NHL will remove the tie from its record keeping. :hlogo::ghg::hlogo: The biggest league in North America, the National Football League, allows for ties. The last tie game was back in 2002. Pittsburgh and Atlanta played to a tie during that season. But given that there's four different was of scoring worth different amounts, it's less conducive to tie scores. http://www.nfl.com/standings/2002/regular But if everyone's so bothered by the current point-for-losing system, there's a very simple, painless, and equitable solution to the problem. It goes something like this. 0 points for a loss, a tie and a win. The NHL is the only North American major pro sports league that doesn't base its standings on a team's winning percentage. If it developed the balls to throw out the points system altogether, then everything would be equal. Most wins, fewest losses. Doesn't matter if it takes 60 minutes, 65, 70, 65 and a shootout. A win is a win is a win.

That was, by far, the worst game of the season. When you have the 20th ranked penalty killing unit in the league, and you're hosting the 3rd ranked powerplay unit, and you take as many penalties as the Habs did, you're playing Russian Roulette. And if it weren't for Jose's wizardry, and Bonk's month-early Christmas gift, the Habs may have given up yet another victory. Get it through your helmets guys. The refs are calling everything, so enough of the little pokes and prods, 'cause you can't afford to give the opposition that many opportunities. And Pierre Dagenais being named third star just for potting the shootout goal is an absolute joke. Shields played just as well as anybody else.

I think part of the problem is that Ryder and Ribeiro are so used to working with different wingers, they don't even bother to use them as much as they should. You put one of the kids that holds the flags out there on that side, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. It's not for the lack of effort on the part of Higgins or whoever happens to be there, it's just that they know each other will be there, so the zero in on the other and kind of forget there's a third guy out there with them. Often times, they'll even drop it back to the defenseman if the other guy isn't open. The winger seem to be option four or five on their list.

Well, given Ryder's uncanny nose for the net, wouldn't it make more sense to move HIM up, if you're gonna break up he and Ribeiro anyway? Zednik can't get one-timers off from the slot anyway, so stick Ryder in there and let Zednik work the weak side.

Wasn't Begin a waiver acquisition?

I saw this on Prime Time Sports last week when Colin Campbell was on. He said that this situation had never really come up in among the GMs or the Rules committee, and that he had no idea how it would be decided if it ever came up during a game. What would happen if a team took three overlapping minors in an overtime game? For arguments sake, let's say that with less than 4 minutes left in overtime, a team gets a minor penalty. Before that first minor expires, they get hit with another one. The rules state that if a team takes overlapping penalties in overtime, the team with the powerplay plays 5-on-3 until the first penalty expires, then plays 5-on-4 until the second penalty expires or until a stoppage in play. But what would happen if the shorthanded team took another penalty, such as too many men on the ice, or shooting the puck directly out of play. Both of these penalties are automatic, so the referees cannot just turn a blind eye to them. In regulation time, the penalized player would just go to the penalty box and the penalty time would not start until after the first penalty was served or a goal scored. But if there's less than 4 minutes left to play, then the game could be over before the penalty could be served. So how should it be enforced. The suggestion was made that a penalty shot should be awarded immediately. It could happen. But the league hasn't officially said, "Here's how we'll handle it." Has anyone else even considered that this may happen, and how could it be handled?

That rule may change. The AHL players union does not like the recall waiver rule at all, and since most of the players affected by it are not NHLPA members and were not consulted on it, they feel it should be changed, and are apparently willing to fight it in court. They argue that because it affects players making more than $75,000 in the AHL, then players who are currently making more than that will never get recalled to the parent club for fear of another team claiming them. And in future, players AHL salaries will be under that $75,000 level to avoid the recall waiver rule, which would send a lot of AHL veterans overseas to Europe. Right now, all sides are in the discussion stage, but if it goes on too long, it could end up in front of an arbitrator or a judge.