AHL rule changes include 7 min. OT

[shmenguin]

3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.

i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalent

[Zarovich]

3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.

i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalent

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.

[mikey287]

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.

[shmenguin]

3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.

i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalent

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.

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.

[columbia]

There's no legitimate reason to not have ties.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

There's no legitimate reason to not have ties.

Because ties are incredibly boring and stupid and I hate them

[columbia]

Maybe you should become an NBA fan? Lots of scoring there.

[interstorm]

3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.

i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalent

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dodint]

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.

[shmenguin]

3-3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout.

i'd be interested in an explanation of how they're equivalent

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.

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.

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.

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.

3 on 3 has happened during games. A series of consecutive penalty shots hasn't.

[bhaw]

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?

[Jim]

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.

[DropEmJayBird]

Going home after a tie….
that sucked - I want closure.

[tfrizz]

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.

I can't wait to watch those 18-on-1s!

[no name]

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.

[Crankshaft]

That net looks ridiculous.

[tfrizz]

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.

Except that the entire reason for shootouts is because they didn't want ties anymore.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

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.

[no name]

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.

[Jim]

Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.

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.

[interstorm]

Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.

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.

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.

[mikey287]

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.

[interstorm]

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.

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.

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.

[mikey287]

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).

[no name]

Personally i don't like it that much as a "skills competition" doesn't tell me who was the better team that night.

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.

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.

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.