New OT rules

[meow]

How many of you have actually seen 3-on-3? It's terrible hockey. No one takes chances and teams end up playing at a molasses slow pace.

I have seen 3 on 3, and thoes games fall into a rut at times. In thoes 3 on 3 games its open, high scoring hockey for the first 2 periords then the 3rd period its the team with the lead trying to sit on their lead for the rest of the game.

Atricle in the post gazette Sid wants 3 on 3, and also favors the 3 point system. Regualtion win 3 pts, OT win 2 points, shootout 1 point. No points for the loser.

I'm not talking about a designed 3-on-3 game. I'm talking about a regular 5-on-5 game that moves to a 3-on-3 because of penalties.

[mikey287]

In pro roller hockey, 3 on 3 is the standard procedure for OT (it is naturally a 4 on 4 game anyhow)...I've seen it go to 2 on 2 and 1 on 1 before. Both would not be considered hockey where I come from. Once lost a game in OT 2 on 2 before and absolutely blew my top...

Next time my team is subjected to 2 on 2, off of the faceoff win at center to start the period, I'm pulling the goalie for the extra skater. Go in 3 on 2, if you can't score, you lose. I'll take my chances, rather than watching 2 on 2 take place for more than 30 consecutive seconds.

3 on 3 in the NHL would be interesting...unless teams play it not to lose or scared to make a mistake, then it sucks, because you only get one support triangle out of it defensively and it's difficult to get sustained pressure. I'd rather see 10 minutes of 4 on 4, then a tie. But since the tie thing seems to be gone, I guess a shootout. The NHL has a thing about killing novelties, I think we've seen too many shootouts, they've lost whatever pizzazz they've had...same with the outdoor games. "They love one, huh? Well, then I'll bet they'll go ape **** for 25 of them!"

3 regulation win
2 OT win
1 OT loss
0 loss

I'm almost tempted to say 1 point each for getting to a shootout and not awarding any points for winning just to discourage teams from getting there, but I know that's not exactly fair or practical. It's a tie...with a happy ending, I guess...

[Rylan]

I hate the 3 point system. I like the classic 2 pts for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. After 10 minutes of OT if neither team scores, then they shouldn't be afforded another opportunity to gain a point.

[mikey287]

I'm cool with that I think.

[Idoit40fans]

I dont have a problem with a shootout. 2 for a win in regulation or overtime 1 for a shootout win, 0 for a loss of any kind.

[no name]

I think what ever the solution you want to keep the excitment in place so people stay in their seats.

If you had a 4 vs 4 for 10 and all penalties were penalty shots that could decide the game. I think that would be exciting.

My question for everyone is which would decide more games? 10 minutes of 4 on 4 or 5 minutes of 3 on 3??

[Idoit40fans]

Id say 3 on 3.

[Great58]

Regualtion win 3 pts, OT win 2 points, shootout 1 point. No points for the loser.

I actually prefer this. Great incentive to go for the regulation win. I tend to favor OT and SO as they currently are but with this adjusted point system.

[Idoit40fans]

I love the idea of gaining fewer poits for the ot win and the idea of no loser point no matter what. Extending the game should be discouraged...thats a good way to up league scoring.

[Willie Kool]

IMO, the loss of the tie (and the instigator rule, but that's another discussion) took a good bit of gentlemanliness away from the game. 4 on 4 OT, 3 on 3 OT, and the shootout are all just gimmicks to force a winner. Some nights neither team really deserves to win.

[no name]

If the league would go to a 3 on 3, I can imagine if you had a goalie who could push the play up ice faster would be a hugh advantage. Fleury is pretty good with the stick so i could see him throwing lead passes alot in OT.

If they do go 3 on 3 i hope they eliminate the shootout and they allow the game to end in a tie if there is no scores in 3 on 3.

Not a big fan of the 3 point system as its just makes another colomn in the sports page. But it might be better if a premium was put on regualtion wins. damned if you do damned if you don't.

Win
Loss
OTwin
OTloss

[the wicked child]

I think I would prefer:

3 for reg. win
2 for OT win
1 for SO win
0 for losers

That puts the emphasis on trying to actually win the game rather than "just surviving to get a point".

Of course, it has its own holes too... not sure there is a perfect solution, but I personally hate the idea of 3 on 3 and I hate ties.

Perhaps do 2 for reg/OT wins, 1 for SO win and 0 for losers... I'd be ok with that.

[DMcGrew]

IMO just because you win the game in OT or Shootout doesn't mean you should get less points. A win is a win. The rules are the same for every team. If your team sucks at shootouts, too bad. The only change I'd make is 0 points to the loser in OT or shootout.

[shmenguin]

IMO just because you win the game in OT or Shootout doesn't mean you should get less points. A win is a win. The rules are the same for every team. If your team sucks at shootouts, too bad. The only change I'd make is 0 points to the loser in OT or shootout.

0 points for a shootout loser is the only idea that I find categorically terrible

[Rylan]

Having to have a winner is a terrible idea.

[DMcGrew]

IMO just because you win the game in OT or Shootout doesn't mean you should get less points. A win is a win. The rules are the same for every team. If your team sucks at shootouts, too bad. The only change I'd make is 0 points to the loser in OT or shootout.

0 points for a shootout loser is the only idea that I find categorically terrible

Lose the game, get 0 points. Simple as that. Why should the loser get anything? Want points.. win the damn game.

[Idoit40fans]

I kind of agree on the 0 points being bad. I think it should probably be 1+ 1 for winner and loser in shootout. Shootout can just be used as a tiebreaker after wins or something.

[no name]

2 pts for win
2 points for OT win
1 point for OT loss
1 point each for a tie.



Yes I would like the tie back. After the 3 on 3 OT for 5 mins there is no shootout, all peanlties are penalty shots that can be taken by any player the coach chooses. Unless you are pulled down on a breakaway then that is taken by the player.

What each team got a 3 minute 5 on 3 power play. If you figure the normal success for the power play is 17% a 5 on 3 success rate would have to run 25% to 30%. I mean there are alot of different ways to decide a game which one gives you a hockey goal finish. I guess that will be up to the GMs next hockey meeting.

[Mr. Colby]

I don't care for 3 on 3, but it's a step up from a shootout.

Best Option: 5 minutes of 4 on 4, 5 minutes of 3 on 3. No shootout. 2 points for a win, 0 points for a loss (Regulation or OT). 1 point for a tie.

Second Best Option: 5 minutes 4-4, 5 mins 3-3, Shootout. 3 point win (reg/OT), 2 point shootout win, 1 point shootout loss, 0 point loss (reg/OT).

Third best Option: 5 mins 4-4, 5 mins 3-3, shootout, 2 point win (reg/OT/SO), 1 point shootout loss, 0 point loss (reg/OT)

You really just should not get a point if you lose the game, other than in a shootout.

[Mr. Colby]

Additionally i like the idea of all penalties in OT resulting in a penalty shot. I'm thinking maybe in the 4 on 4 session let the 4 on 3 PP happen because that's a fun situation. But if it's in the 3 on 3 session, go straight to a penalty shot. Do not add a player to the ice.

[Beveridge]

2 Points for Win
1 Point for Tie
0 Points for Loss

4v4 for 5 minutes, 3v3 for 5 minutes, game over
eliminate shootout

I'm down with that.

[no name]

How about a 5 minute 4 on 4.

Then a 2 minute 4 on 3 power play for the home team. If you score the other team has to score in a faster time that you to win. Other wise it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Or a 10 minute 4 on 4, but the only difference is you have to be fully on the bench to change players on the fly. This would lead to alot of odd man breaks.

[mikey287]

How about 10 minute 4-on-4, switch ends so you have to make a long change...

[Idoit40fans]

3 on 3, no changes till someone wins.

[no name]

I think if you look at it the shootout has kept the fans in their seats til the end of the game and brought alot of excitment to the conclusion. That was the NHLs goal when adding it. Now i would prefere it gone but i can't deny it does keep even the mildest hockey fan staying til the end.. But anyting they try to put in its place has better be exiting to keep the fans intrested in the conclusion of the contest.