i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalentTheHammer24 wrote:3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.
AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 25041
- Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:34 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
-
- AHL'er
- Posts: 3126
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:50 pm
- Location: Waiting for the write-up...
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
If it isn't due to penalties, it is a gimmick. How a team soring a goal 4-4 or 3-3 or some other combination without there being a play that causes it, penalties, then it can be called a gimmick.shmenguin wrote:i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalentTheHammer24 wrote:3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 21107
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
See, here's the thing with 3v3 that people don't account for. It's not coached for right now, so the players just play it. When 3v3 is coached, it won't be as wide-open and fun as you think...especially - well, only, really - if there's no pressure.
You have to understand what you lose when you lose a man. What a lot of people don't realize in 3v3 is that you lose F1. As silly as that sounds, that's the player that's lost...so there's a lack of pressure/forecheck now...so you have to be careful what you wish for...once coaches realize that that can be a part of the game and they get their hands on it, well, it might not be such a good idea after all.
You have to understand what you lose when you lose a man. What a lot of people don't realize in 3v3 is that you lose F1. As silly as that sounds, that's the player that's lost...so there's a lack of pressure/forecheck now...so you have to be careful what you wish for...once coaches realize that that can be a part of the game and they get their hands on it, well, it might not be such a good idea after all.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 25041
- Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:34 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Sure it's a gimmick. But equating 3 on 3 to a shoot out isn't a serious statement. You may hate them equally but one is significantly more of a gimmick than the other.Zarovich wrote:If it isn't due to penalties, it is a gimmick. How a team soring a goal 4-4 or 3-3 or some other combination without there being a play that causes it, penalties, then it can be called a gimmick.shmenguin wrote:i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalentTheHammer24 wrote:3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 51889
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
There's no legitimate reason to not have ties.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10292
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: I say stupid things. You have been warned
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Because ties are incredibly boring and stupid and I hate themcolumbia wrote:There's no legitimate reason to not have ties.
-
- NHL Second Liner
- Posts: 51889
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Maybe you should become an NBA fan? Lots of scoring there.
-
- ECHL'er
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
- Location: From IglooReport - same user name
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
well - you think one is more of a gimmick than the other, let's think about this. would it be acceptable to say that if one is more likely to happen during the course of a normal game than that would be considered the "less gimmicky" option? is it fair to say between the shootout and 3-on-3 the alternative that has less of a deviation from the current play is the better choice? if so, then i'd say the shootout is closer to a penalty shot than 3-on-3 is to the standard game (even when played 4-on-4). yes i understand they did 3-on-3 in the 80's...but at one time passing the puck forward was illegal.shmenguin wrote:Sure it's a gimmick. But equating 3 on 3 to a shoot out isn't a serious statement. You may hate them equally but one is significantly more of a gimmick than the other.Zarovich wrote:If it isn't due to penalties, it is a gimmick. How a team soring a goal 4-4 or 3-3 or some other combination without there being a play that causes it, penalties, then it can be called a gimmick.shmenguin wrote:i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalentTheHammer24 wrote:3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.
don't get me wrong - i am no champion of the shootout -- i think more goals overall being scored would end this debate. more goals means a lower minutes-per-goal value and (i'd assume) less overtimes and more goals scored in overtime. regardless, however, i think the 3-on-3 option is just cooky and arbitrary. it is something that won't make sense to new fans and does not really solve the problem while actually creating (or at the least continuing) other problems.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10615
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:57 am
- Location: Sparta, WI
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
6-on-6 no goalies after 5 min of OT sounds radical but is more organic than a shootout and easy to explain to new fans. With that many players clogging up space on the ice a goal wouldn't be a compete cakewalk. Plus, no ties.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 25041
- Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:34 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
3 on 3 has happened during games. A series of consecutive penalty shots hasn't.interstorm wrote:well - you think one is more of a gimmick than the other, let's think about this. would it be acceptable to say that if one is more likely to happen during the course of a normal game than that would be considered the "less gimmicky" option? is it fair to say between the shootout and 3-on-3 the alternative that has less of a deviation from the current play is the better choice? if so, then i'd say the shootout is closer to a penalty shot than 3-on-3 is to the standard game (even when played 4-on-4). yes i understand they did 3-on-3 in the 80's...but at one time passing the puck forward was illegal.shmenguin wrote:Sure it's a gimmick. But equating 3 on 3 to a shoot out isn't a serious statement. You may hate them equally but one is significantly more of a gimmick than the other.Zarovich wrote:If it isn't due to penalties, it is a gimmick. How a team soring a goal 4-4 or 3-3 or some other combination without there being a play that causes it, penalties, then it can be called a gimmick.shmenguin wrote:i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalentTheHammer24 wrote:3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.
don't get me wrong - i am no champion of the shootout -- i think more goals overall being scored would end this debate. more goals means a lower minutes-per-goal value and (i'd assume) less overtimes and more goals scored in overtime. regardless, however, i think the 3-on-3 option is just cooky and arbitrary. it is something that won't make sense to new fans and does not really solve the problem while actually creating (or at the least continuing) other problems.
-
- NHL Third Liner
- Posts: 28740
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:00 pm
- Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Setting up a giant slingshot to send a player into an open net happens during the course of a game. Can we go that route?
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 19148
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:18 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
No goalies... put up those boards with the little slot at the bottom used for games between periods... start 1-on-1 and then every 30 seconds pull a logo from a hat and whichever team's logo gets pulled can send another skater out on the ice.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 5728
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:38 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Going home after a tie….
that sucked - I want closure.
that sucked - I want closure.
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9298
- Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
- Location: Freddy Beach
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
I can't wait to watch those 18-on-1s!Jim wrote:No goalies... put up those boards with the little slot at the bottom used for games between periods... start 1-on-1 and then every 30 seconds pull a logo from a hat and whichever team's logo gets pulled can send another skater out on the ice.
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8323
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:19 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
I thnk letting the AHL be the ginney pig with this new set up is fine. A sample of this in the AHL will let the NHL determin what effect it will have on the NHL platform. You never know if the 4 on 4 switching sides might be enough to get games to be decided befor the shootout. If it doesn't have the desired effect you can try another avenue.
I think 4 on 4 in OT, switch sides, dry ice clean, for 6:40 and use the bubble nets, no shootout. Each team gets 1 point if thegame ends in a tie.
![Image](http://nhl.speedera.net/image-upload/rdcamp_ovalnet_wide.jpg)
This way you don't need to change the net holes in the ice.
I think 4 on 4 in OT, switch sides, dry ice clean, for 6:40 and use the bubble nets, no shootout. Each team gets 1 point if thegame ends in a tie.
![Image](http://nhl.speedera.net/image-upload/rdcamp_ovalnet_wide.jpg)
This way you don't need to change the net holes in the ice.
-
- AHL All-Star
- Posts: 7478
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:35 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
That net looks ridiculous.
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 9298
- Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
- Location: Freddy Beach
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Except that the entire reason for shootouts is because they didn't want ties anymore.no name wrote:I thnk letting the AHL be the ginney pig with this new set up is fine. A sample of this in the AHL will let the NHL determin what effect it will have on the NHL platform. You never know if the 4 on 4 switching sides might be enough to get games to be decided befor the shootout. If it doesn't have the desired effect you can try another avenue.
I think 4 on 4 in OT, switch sides, dry ice clean, for 6:40 and use the bubble nets, no shootout. Each team gets 1 point if thegame ends in a tie.
This way you don't need to change the net holes in the ice.
-
- NHL Healthy Scratch
- Posts: 10292
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:18 pm
- Location: I say stupid things. You have been warned
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
How about at the end of regulation, we send everybody home but the captains and alternates of each team play a rousing game of NHL 15? Winner of that gets 3 points.
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8323
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:19 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
tfrizz wrote:no name wrote:I thnk letting the AHL be the ginney pig with this new set up is fine. A sample of this in the AHL will let the NHL determin what effect it will have on the NHL platform. You never know if the 4 on 4 switching sides might be enough to get games to be decided befor the shootout. If it doesn't have the desired effect you can try another avenue.
I think 4 on 4 in OT, switch sides, dry ice clean, for 6:40 and use the bubble nets, no shootout. Each team gets 1 point if thegame ends in a tie.
This way you don't need to change the net holes in the ice.
The entire reason for shootouts is because they didn't want ties anymore.
The NHL did the shootout as a way to keep fans in their seats til the game was actually over. Not kidding the arena would be half full if a game went into OT back then. Not because they didn't like ties anymore.
It is a more exciting way to end a game and the fans do stay for OT actually hoping to see a shootout.
Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 19148
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:18 pm
- Location: Pittsburgh
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Scoring is what causes wins. You can have the greatest defensive team in the history of sports... and if they do not score they will not win. they would end up 0-0-1,000,000. So, if you are going to do overtime or something extra like shootouts... it is fine that it is skill/offense oriented. 60 minutes "your" way, and then you need to score to win.no name wrote:Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.
-
- ECHL'er
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
- Location: From IglooReport - same user name
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
And let us also say that scoring (generally) causes excitement. The Pens/Flyers series from a couple seasons ago was some bad hockey, put it had (for hockey) very high ratings -- people couldn't look away. If the NHL wants to catch the national attention, we simply need more goals. More goals = lower average time between goals scored. Lower average time between goals scored ~= less ties.Jim wrote:Scoring is what causes wins. You can have the greatest defensive team in the history of sports... and if they do not score they will not win. they would end up 0-0-1,000,000. So, if you are going to do overtime or something extra like shootouts... it is fine that it is skill/offense oriented. 60 minutes "your" way, and then you need to score to win.no name wrote:Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 21107
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
Just make every goal worth 7 like football does. The average score of an NHL game is 3 to 2.5. Which is 21 to 17 in football terms. I know football is a touch higher scoring now...probably like 24 to 21 or so. Which is 3.5 to 3.
-
- ECHL'er
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm
- Location: From IglooReport - same user name
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
as stated at http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/64 ... me#!bgdQRS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the average score is actually 29 to (about) 18. in addition, there are 9 total "scores" per game (score counted as either a touchdown or a field goal. note that i also added .5 for defensive touchdowns). this represents over a 60% increase in "scores" than in hockey -- so i don't think the comparison holds up.mikey287 wrote:Just make every goal worth 7 like football does. The average score of an NHL game is 3 to 2.5. Which is 21 to 17 in football terms. I know football is a touch higher scoring now...probably like 24 to 21 or so. Which is 3.5 to 3.
also -- regardless of one's position on the overtime/more goals topic -- the above link is a quick and interesting read. good for stat-junkies.
-
- NHL Fourth Liner
- Posts: 21107
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:40 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
It wasn't really serious. Nor do I care for scoring to go up. I just want a better product. Goals, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a product of better.
Either way 47 points, 45 points, close enough. Most people seem to dislike field goals anyhow, so giving them even a "half" is pushing it. The league agrees (see: new overtime protocols re: field goals).
Either way 47 points, 45 points, close enough. Most people seem to dislike field goals anyhow, so giving them even a "half" is pushing it. The league agrees (see: new overtime protocols re: field goals).
-
- AHL Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8323
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:19 pm
Re: AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT
My only point is a shootout doesn't make me say at the end of the night, "We beat that team we were better than them" we just won a penalty shot competition. That doesn't help you during the playoffs. I would just like the NHL to find a way to have the games decided in a hockey way.interstorm wrote:And let us also say that scoring (generally) causes excitement. The Pens/Flyers series from a couple seasons ago was some bad hockey, put it had (for hockey) very high ratings -- people couldn't look away. If the NHL wants to catch the national attention, we simply need more goals. More goals = lower average time between goals scored. Lower average time between goals scored ~= less ties.Jim wrote:Scoring is what causes wins. You can have the greatest defensive team in the history of sports... and if they do not score they will not win. they would end up 0-0-1,000,000. So, if you are going to do overtime or something extra like shootouts... it is fine that it is skill/offense oriented. 60 minutes "your" way, and then you need to score to win.no name wrote:Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.