Coach's Challenge to be Implemented Next Season

[Kerfuffle]

Looks like this is going to pass - already made it through the GMs. I believe the PA will approve it as well. I like it. Details below.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 33063.html

[Portland Blues]

My only concern is how long (potentially) the reviews could take. I'd be for giving 60 seconds or so to look at the video and then state the decision.

We've all seen games where a goal review drags on forever.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

Best news is they approved 3 on 3 in OT! That will be more exciting than 4 on 4! Plus it will reduce shootouts.

[cprice12]

Best news is they approved 3 on 3 in OT! That will be more exciting than 4 on 4! Plus it will reduce shootouts.

I hate this idea.
Extend 4 on 4 to 10 minutes. Simple solution and much better.
3 on 3 is going to be way too wide open, to the point of being a joke.

[Kerfuffle]

I hate this idea.
Extend 4 on 4 to 10 minutes. Simple solution and much better.
3 on 3 is going to be way too wide open, to the point of being a joke.

10min will be a hard sell with the PA. Many don't want to extend the games. I agree with you on the 3-on-3 though - I think it will just lead to a bunch of exhausted players and be more harmful when the team has to the play the following night.

[ecbm]

Great. Keeping worthless, completely untraditional shootout (a priority to Buttman) and making a bad situation worse with 3v3. F'in stupid. I'm quite convinced that Buttman secretly hates hockey.

Eliminate the shootout and loser point, bring back ties at 1 point and make 3 points for a win. But wait, that doesn't provide a giant gimmick, does it?

[cprice12]

Great. Keeping worthless, completely untraditional shootout (a priority to Buttman) and making a bad situation worse with 3v3. F'in stupid. I'm quite convinced that Buttman secretly hates hockey.

Eliminate the shootout and loser point, bring back ties at 1 point and make 3 points for a win. But wait, that doesn't provide a giant gimmick, does it?

I'd rather have 3 on 3 than bring ties back.
I hated ties back in the day, and I'd hate them again.
Who likes kissing their sister anyway?

[cardsfan04]

I don't like ties either. I know it's not hip, but I like the shootouts. I get the criticism of them. But, I find them entertaining.

3 on 3 seems weird. I'd have to see it though.

I didn't like the sound of challenges before clicking the link, but I think I could get on board with that.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

Best news is they approved 3 on 3 in OT! That will be more exciting than 4 on 4! Plus it will reduce shootouts.

I hate this idea.
Extend 4 on 4 to 10 minutes. Simple solution and much better.
3 on 3 is going to be way too wide open, to the point of being a joke.

But this INCREASES excitement and drama! Imagine all the 2 on 1, 3 on 1, 1 on none, 2 on none breaks you'll have. This is EXACTLY what hockey needs. More excitement to keep fans glued. Since they've all but eliminated fighting we need something else to make up for it.

A tie is the worst thing ever. I can't believe the NHL had ties for so long.

[glen a richter]

Ties are as much a part of hockey as the Wales and Campbell Conferences. They need to bring all three back.

[dmiles2186]

Great. Keeping worthless, completely untraditional shootout (a priority to Buttman) and making a bad situation worse with 3v3. F'in stupid. I'm quite convinced that Buttman secretly hates hockey.

Eliminate the shootout and loser point, bring back ties at 1 point and make 3 points for a win. But wait, that doesn't provide a giant gimmick, does it?

I'd rather have 3 on 3 than bring ties back.
I hated ties back in the day, and I'd hate them again.
Who likes kissing their sister anyway?

The soccer fan in me doesn't mind ties. Some nights, a tie feels like a win, sometimes it feels like a loss. Sometimes it feels like two even teams that battled the entire game and no one could win. A point for ties definitely makes more sense than a tie for a loss.

That said, I also realize our country as a whole wouldn't favor going back to ties (even though our national game has them). I'd definitely be okay with the 4 on 4 for 10 mins. I don't understand why 5 extra minutes in a game is that big of a deal.

[Fradi]

Coming from Europe I actually don't mind ties, never really got what was wrong with that in a league system where you're collecting points and such. But of course I can understand it's viewed in a different light over there, but I'd be really curious why is that?

[ecbm]

Ties are ties. When two teams play 65 minutes and neither scores more goals than the other, on the night they have drawn. Now, the NHL has a skills competition gimmick to make you think there was some difference between the teams on the night when actually, there wasn't. I find it faddish and typical for me, I'm less than impressed with the newest thing.

Curt-honestly, you expressed exasperation with ties before the NHL brass suggested it? I never heard it once from anyone until after the NHL started considering the shootout and then only among young fans. I never had any problem with a tie. And I'm not fooled by the shootout.

[Kerfuffle]

I'll take the shootout any day over a tie. I hate ties. Nothing was more discouraging than walking out of a game with a tie. Games need to have a winner and loser.

[Fradi]

Have to agree, this new rule to me sounds even more stupid.
I mean, the shootout itself is a gimmick, and this 3-on-3 stuff is just bringing that to a whole new level. And to think that one team is getting one point extra for winning a shootout or a ridiculous 3-on-3...Not to mention that this can have an effect on who makes the playoffs and who doesn't at the end of the year, which is plain wrong in my opinion.

[Kreegz2]

I'll take the shootout any day over a tie. I hate ties. Nothing was more discouraging than walking out of a game with a tie. Games need to have a winner and loser.

I wholeheartedly disagree. There is nothing more discouraging to me than a game that was hard fought and ended tied after 65 minutes, only to be decided by some gimmicky aberration of the sport. For example, our game against Philly a week or two ago ended 0-0 after a stunning display by both goaltenders. That's how it should have ended.

We need to go back to the point system that was used until '98. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss(even an OT loss, the loser point goes against logic). Keep the 4v4 overtime and extend it to 10 minutes.

[dmiles2186]

Coming from Europe I actually don't mind ties, never really got what was wrong with that in a league system where you're collecting points and such. But of course I can understand it's viewed in a different light over there, but I'd be really curious why is that?

I think it's just what Americans are accustomed too. Baseball has extra innings, basketball has overtime. For some reason, most Americans (who love 'our' football) bash on ties and yet the NFL has them. They don't have a large number (usually 1-2 every 5 years or so), but they have ties nonetheless.

I'm with you, it's a points based league. A tie isn't always a bad thing in that setup since it's points gained.

I mean, what's dumber? A point for a loss or a point for a tie? I say a point for a loss.

[glen a richter]

The loser point is very generational... everyone gets a trophy. Who cares about the self esteem of highly paid athletes? They should have learned at a young age that life has winners, life has losers and sometimes both participants do basically equally well and then (and only then) should both be given credit for their efforts. If people get hurt that they lose but don't get a participation point for hanging in there then that's too bad.

[cardsfan04]

The loser point is very generational... everyone gets a trophy. Who cares about the self esteem of highly paid athletes? They should have learned at a young age that life has winners, life has losers and sometimes both participants do basically equally well and then (and only then) should both be given credit for their efforts. If people get hurt that they lose but don't get a participation point for hanging in there then that's too bad.

Haha, I hadn't considered that angle, but I guess I see the correlation. I don't think that's the league's motivation though. I think the loser point and 3 point games in general allow more teams to be in the playoff race down the stretch which should lead to more ticket sales. I think that's why it's here and why it won't ever go away.

[Misc. Blues]

Ties don't bother me. I think they should just go 2pts for win and 1pt for a tie. Over-time losses shouldn't exist. If a team loses in OT they should not get a point. That alone would make teams play harder knowing they could still get nothing. 3-on-3 has to be the most idiotic thing I have heard yet from Count Buttman. Talk about ruining the game. You don't even see 3-on-3 in game...ever. I wish Buttman would go back to basketball and quit ruining hockey for us real fans of the game. They should have 10 minute OT's with both teams switching sides at 5 minutes and if nobody wins it should end in tie...