JoeLassister Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 :puke: I like shootout, it's WAY MORE spectacular and exciting than a draw. Draw really sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I like shootout, it's WAY MORE spectacular and exciting than a draw. Draw really sucked. If you're going to let individual play determine the outcome of the game, why bother playing the game in the first place? Hockey is a team sport. Yes, sometimes a guy puts a team on his back, but he still doesn't win it alone. The shootout has taken all of the excitement out of what used to be an exciting, but rare part of the game. Now they're a dime a dozen. Heck, there were 5 shootouts in one night earlier this week. And here's a question for you, why don't any of the shootout stats count? Because it's not part of the game, that's why. Because of the shootout, teams now have fewer game winning goals than they have wins. How ridiculous is that? The shootout has brought absolutely nothing to the game. Fans don't go to games just because they want to see a shootout. They go to watch a hockey game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacchus Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Me too. I prefer sudden death overtime ... but that is only practical in the playoffs. After that, shootouts are the best. Very exciting ... stimulates the heart in a rather nice way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I am not a fan but if the NHL has more success with it I guess it's alright. It can be exciting but in really action packed games it can also be anticlimactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacchus Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 If you're going to let individual play determine the outcome of the game, why bother playing the game in the first place? Hockey is a team sport. Yes, sometimes a guy puts a team on his back, but he still doesn't win it alone. The shootout has taken all of the excitement out of what used to be an exciting, but rare part of the game. Now they're a dime a dozen. Heck, there were 5 shootouts in one night earlier this week. And here's a question for you, why don't any of the shootout stats count? Because it's not part of the game, that's why. Because of the shootout, teams now have fewer game winning goals than they have wins. How ridiculous is that? The shootout has brought absolutely nothing to the game. Fans don't go to games just because they want to see a shootout. They go to watch a hockey game. So what is your solution? 5 minute overtime? Draws? How is that any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 So what is your solution? 5 minute overtime? Draws? How is that any better? I see absolutely nothing wrong with both teams walking away with one point and a tie after playing each other evenly for 65 minutes. They do it in soccer and it's the most popular sport worldwide. NFL football can even have ties, though they are rare. Maybe allow for a full 20 minutes overtime period, similar to the NFL. It would be rough on the players if they have to do it back-to-back, but there's nothing more exciting than sudden death hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacchus Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I see absolutely nothing wrong with both teams walking away with one point and a tie after playing each other evenly for 65 minutes. They do it in soccer and it's the most popular sport worldwide. NFL football can even have ties, though they are rare. Maybe allow for a full 20 minutes overtime period, similar to the NFL. It would be rough on the players if they have to do it back-to-back, but there's nothing more exciting than sudden death hockey. So you get what you want, other fans get what they want. And the teams play for an extra point. No harm, no foul. I personally think it is exciting and adds a new dimension to the game. Furthermore, there are things that happen in the 65 minutes that I don't see as hockey. Like the trap, fighting, clutching and grabbing etc. You take the good with the bad ... and try to enjoy it as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 sudden death is the best option but its only practical in the playoffs. I'm sorry but in this day in age a tie is stupid. This isn't like the 50's and 60's where teams hated each other and felt it was horrible that they tied and such. The games had to have some kind of conclusion to it. Shootouts work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Furthermore, there are things that happen in the 65 minutes that I don't see as hockey. Like fighting Fighting is part of the game. Always has been and always should be. The instigator needs to go. Back to deciding games, my idea of a full 20 minute overtime period has started a debate in my own head. I think it would eliminate most ties, especially if they played it 4-on-4. It would be a team way to decide a game and would add more excitement than 6 guys on breakaways. On the other hand, would that take away from playoff overtime? That's the most exciting time to be a hockey fan, playoff overtimes. Would having a similar system in the regular season take anything away from how awesome overtime is in the playoffs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) Fighting is part of the game. Always has been and always should be. The instigator needs to go. Back to deciding games, my idea of a full 20 minute overtime period has started a debate in my own head. I think it would eliminate most ties, especially if they played it 4-on-4. It would be a team way to decide a game and would add more excitement than 6 guys on breakaways. On the other hand, would that take away from playoff overtime? That's the most exciting time to be a hockey fan, playoff overtimes. Would having a similar system in the regular season take anything away from how awesome overtime is in the playoffs? Their is a HUGE difference between a season overtimes and playoff overtimes. A 1 game lead vs a 1 point lead !!! Ask all the players if they want to play a 20 min overtime who will finish at 12h00 in Vancouver and play the very next day at 19h in Florida??? There is no way it would work. Shootout is better for TV, better for the schedule, better for the fans (I've been to the game in Bell Centre against Edmonton, and i would have been VERY disapointed if the game has ended after the OT). Bringing shootout make you put more snipers in the lineup instead of goons too. And i forgot about the players. They would be tired after 70 mins of play, so they would be less concentrated. The game would be more disconnected. The most you get tired, the most you have chance to be injured. You would see a lot more injuries and many less players diving in front of a shot as we see in playoffs. Sudden death OT is good only for the playoffs when it's all about courage and toughness. Here in Montréal, we love hockey and a draw isn't so bad, but in Columbus or Tampa Bay, shootout is way better and fans might like it much than a draw. Edited February 8, 2007 by JoeLassister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House11 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Instead of shootouts ... they should just parachute a blindfolded monkey from the ceiling and which ever teams player is touches first is declared the winner ! Seriously ... I'm ok with shootouts ... but I'd rather have sudden death. After the third , zamboni the ice .. give the teams 10 minutes to rest ... and then play a 10 minute period 4 on 4 ... with the way penalties are called they're should be a couple powerplays to help get the game finished. Take away this point for losing in OT or bonus point for winning .. what ever they want to call it. It should be 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie .. that's it ! Like Fanpuck said .. get rid of the instigator rule and you'll see runs on star players go down fairly quickley. What I would recommend is if the ref feels you instigated a fight in the last 5 minutes of the game or in OT then you could get and instigator / game and a 10 .. which would carry over to the next game as well ... can't start playing again until it's over. This would basically be so things wont get out of control near the end of blow out games etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smon Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Shootouts are fun, man. They show off the talent and skill level of NHL'ers and I'm all for it. In regular OT they usually tend to be less energetic and are ready to stick with a tie. It's a part of the game now, so deal with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Shootouts are fun, man. They show off the talent and skill level of NHL'ers Perhaps, but the penalty shot used to be so rare that is was special each time. Now, a penalty shot is ho-hum, they happen all the time. Plus, and end-to-end rush, great passing on a 2-1, etc. is a much better display of hockey than a shootout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I agree with everything Fanpuck said. I don't like the shootout at all - totally inappropriate way to decide a game. A great game is a great game - ending in a tie does nothing to detract from its quality (e.g. Habs vs. the Soviets in '75). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 One-on-one contest. Both goalies are in their respective nets. Ref drops the puck at center ice. One player gets control of the puck and gets one official shot on goal, the other player plays defense. They have one minute to get their shot on goal. After one minute, two new players come out and do the same thing. I hate this idea, but it's a helluva lot closer to the actual game than the shootout is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Change it to 2v1's and at least there's teamwork involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm pretty undecided but Red Fisher has always put his argument nicely: If the shootout is such a fair way to end a hockey game, why is it not used in the playoffs? Of course, the answer is that the NHL knows it is not the best way to end a game and it's more of a toss up. But if it's needed to bring fans to the seats, than I don't mind so much. Anyway, what they should really be doing to get American fans back in the seats is not to take out even more fighting... but to bring it back. The NHL has lost plenty of fans by making enforcers obsolete. Also, it added another dimension to the game - you could be a great player... and then you could be a great player who'll stand up for himself and fight (a dominant player). It might sound absurd, but that's hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm pretty undecided but Red Fisher has always put his argument nicely: If the shootout is such a fair way to end a hockey game, why is it not used in the playoffs? Of course, the answer is that the NHL knows it is not the best way to end a game and it's more of a toss up. But if it's needed to bring fans to the seats, than I don't mind so much. Anyway, what they should really be doing to get American fans back in the seats is not to take out even more fighting... but to bring it back. The NHL has lot plenty of fans by making enforcers obsolete. Also, it added another dimension to the game - you could be a great player... and then you could be a great player who'll stand up for himself and fight (a dominant player). It might sound absurd, but that's hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm pretty undecided but Red Fisher has always put his argument nicely: If the shootout is such a fair way to end a hockey game, why is it not used in the playoffs? Of course, the answer is that the NHL knows it is not the best way to end a game and it's more of a toss up. But if it's needed to bring fans to the seats, than I don't mind so much. Anyway, what they should really be doing to get American fans back in the seats is not to take out even more fighting... but to bring it back. The NHL has lot plenty of fans by making enforcers obsolete. Also, it added another dimension to the game - you could be a great player... and then you could be a great player who'll stand up for himself and fight (a dominant player). It might sound absurd, but that's hockey. Isn't attendance down slightly over last year? Even though 60% of the games tied after regulation end up in a shootout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacchus Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Anyway, what they should really be doing to get American fans back in the seats is not to take out even more fighting... but to bring it back. The NHL has lot plenty of fans by making enforcers obsolete. Also, it added another dimension to the game - you could be a great player... and then you could be a great player who'll stand up for himself and fight (a dominant player). It might sound absurd, but that's hockey. Fighting does seem entertaining ... but what do all those goons do when they aren't fighting? Yes, they are trying to start fights. And as we all know, a great way to start a brawl is to get some good to plow in to your best players. How many great players have been taken out by players whose aggression is their primary calling card? I say, bring back the finess, let the stars razzle-dazzle. And if the American viewers want to see aggression, and hits, they should watch football or boxing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 The league need more Iginla's. He's probably the closest we have to a Gordie Howe type right now. Talented player who hits people and drops the gloves when needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacchus Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Yes, but we need less D. Brashers too. Thugs on skates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Yes, but we need less D. Brashers too. Thugs on skates. Hitting is an art. It's a big part of playing defence and it comes into play in the offensive zone as well (and even in center ice). If you take hitting out of hockey it'll become the All-Star Game. You'll also see many great players suddenly become so-so players. If a goon's taking runs at stars, suspend him. If a goon's fighting other goon's than, what's wrong with that? Even better than the goons are the guys like Souray who fight to step up for teammates and not just for the hell of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Seriously ... I'm ok with shootouts ... but I'd rather have sudden death. After the third , zamboni the ice .. give the teams 10 minutes to rest ... and then play a 10 minute period 4 on 4 ... with the way penalties are called they're should be a couple powerplays to help get the game finished. Take away this point for losing in OT or bonus point for winning .. what ever they want to call it. It should be 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie .. that's it ! Your idea of 10 minute overtimes has received some high-profile support! Eric Duhatschek's blog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Gary Bettman was on Prime Time Sports with Bob McCown last week (check iTunes for the free podcast, Friday Feb 16 was the date, I think) and they asked about changing the overtime from five minutes to ten. Bettman's reply was that it wasn't practical because it would mean they would have to flood the ice after regulation, and the league requires at least twelve minutes to do that between periods. The following show, Bettman said he had been speaking with several arena maintenance people, and said that with two ice machines doing the flood, it could be done in seven to eight minutes. Here's another thing to consider. Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that two-thirds of the games that don't end in regulation go to a shootout. How much do you want to wager that the PA tries to get some kind of official statistic for shootouts when the CBA comes up? When that happens, that will be the end of the shootout. Edited February 22, 2007 by RobRock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.