Let's Go Blues

STLADOGG wrote:

Kreegz2 wrote:What happens when someone takes a penalty in OT? Penalty shot?

Wow, great question. 2 on 3? Sounds horrifying.

Higher up in the thread someone (cprice?) said if a team takes a penalty during 3-on-3 overtime, the other team gets a 4th player on the ice for the duration of the penalty.

Which is totally effed up. Why don't they just make the penalized team skate on one foot for the duration of the penalty? That would work too. Or how about they all have to drop their sticks and can only kick the puck? Or keep one hand on their heads at all times?

All these make about as much sense.

gaijin wrote:

STLADOGG wrote:

Kreegz2 wrote:What happens when someone takes a penalty in OT? Penalty shot?

Wow, great question. 2 on 3? Sounds horrifying.

Higher up in the thread someone (cprice?) said if a team takes a penalty during 3-on-3 overtime, the other team gets a 4th player on the ice for the duration of the penalty.

Which is totally effed up. Why don't they just make the penalized team skate on one foot for the duration of the penalty? That would work too. Or how about they all have to drop their sticks and can only kick the puck? Or keep one hand on their heads at all times?

All these make about as much sense.

Sent Bettman a letter suggesting ending tied games with a game of horse, a Texas Hold'em tournament or a duel with pistols between the two teams' captains. I haven't received a response.

Personally I don't like 3 on 3. It'll be exciting but your best guys are going to be burned out really quickly, it's going to be like a 20 second shift and all that will happen is teams trading 2-on-1's.

Then again I guess that's the whole point...

NHL Network radio reported that a penalty in OT would, yes, be a 4 on 3 for duration of penalty. If the player gets out before the next whistle it'll be 4 on 4 until the next stoppage.

WaukeeBlues wrote:NHL Network radio reported that a penalty in OT would, yes, be a 4 on 3 for duration of penalty. If the player gets out before the next whistle it'll be 4 on 4 until the next stoppage.

Ahh I was wondering if hey would just stop play after the 2 minutes were up. Kind of dumb honestly.

If they felt the need to make any sort of changes, it should have been changing to a 10 minute OT. I know that was mentioned earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

Something that could make the likelihood of shootouts less without totally destroying the integrity of the game with bullshit like 3 on 3 would be a 10 minute OT with a running clock (except for stoppages for goals scored), 5 on 5 but offside and icing rules no longer apply. Whoever scores more in the 10 minutes wins, if it's still a draw, game over, good night and get home safe. I guess that would lead to a hell of a lot of cherry picking though, I don't know. If they have to make changes don't make it a damn 3 on 3 though, that's bush league bullshit.

glen a richter wrote:If they felt the need to make any sort of changes, it should have been changing to a 10 minute OT. I know that was mentioned earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

Something that could make the likelihood of shootouts less without totally destroying the integrity of the game with bullshit like 3 on 3 would be a 10 minute OT with a running clock (except for stoppages for goals scored), 5 on 5 but offside and icing rules no longer apply. Whoever scores more in the 10 minutes wins, if it's still a draw, game over, good night and get home safe. I guess that would lead to a hell of a lot of cherry picking though, I don't know. If they have to make changes don't make it a damn 3 on 3 though, that's bush league bullshit.

I agree with changing the OT to 10 minutes (even though its not gonna happen because of unions and lawyers), but i disagree with your complete dismissal of 3v3 play. It is technically still a possibility within the rules of the game to see 3 on 3 hockey during regulation. It's very rare to see it, but it does happen and therefore it's not as outlandish as the shootout.

However, 3on3 AND the shootout is just too much gimmickry

I would have liked to see an extension of OT to 10 minutes. 4v4 for the first 5 minutes. The first stoppage AFTER the 5 minute mark, play is changed to 3v3 and is finished out that way. This minimizes its use and keeps play flowing if a team happens to be on an odd man break or have sustained pressure in the offensive zone. At the end of the 10 minutes, the game a ends a tie. Get rid of the loser point and simplify the standings back to W-L-T with a win being worth 2 points, tie 1 point, and a loss 0. With this system, a team that knows that they are not good at 4v4s and 3v3s would be incentivized to win the game in regulation. I imagine we would see a lot more desperate attempts to win games at the end of the third before the OT, rather than the typical "play for the loser point" mentality that teams seem to adopt during the last 5 minutes of a game unless they are on a powerplay.

Other options apparently considered by Bettman and his pals :
- Dance -off
- Rap battle
- A game of chess
- Which captain gets the most phone numbers from the stands
- Beauty pageant

For the penalties, heard they wanted to make the offending player's team play naked for 2 mins. Or have their goalie replaced by pug pups.

Stupid rule, really, and shootout is still there...

Tapatalk-kal küldve az én D5503-el

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/3 ... on-goalies

Schneider is right, 3 on 3 will be hell for goalies. On the plus side, there probably will be a lot fewer shootouts.

I just don't get why they can't keep well enough alone. There was nothing wrong with hockey the way it was. The only thing I would ever endorse as a change to tradition, and this is something I may have mentioned in here previously, is starting the period in the offensive zone rather than center ice when there's a carry over power play.

I like it. Open up the damn ice already.

Were it not for $$$ the NHL could go to the larger ice surface. Along with enlarging the goal, we'd see a much better game instead of this excruciatingly boring bullcrap we have now, where each game is basically indistinguishable from the next with the goddamn endless cycling.

I'm all for seeing more creativity in the game. This is at least something.

All equipment size should be reduced... a lot. These guys wear so much fukking body armor it practically doubles their surface area. I don't think a goalie would bitch about having a 3.50 GAA if the rest of the league has a 3.60.

Two words: Empty nets.

Go five on five or four on four or whatever have you and pull the goalies. It brings a new element into the game that wasn't there anymore and would create some excitement. All the other stuff that's being suggested is all been there/done that and doesn't really create any new excitement. This one subtraction would.

glen a richter wrote:Schneider is right, 3 on 3 will be hell for goalies.

Like so many of the changes to the game have been over the last decade. If you're a goalie, you're just getting continually shit on by the league. I'm not surprised at the crap standard of goaltending you see now. (How would Roy or Hasek's numbers go up if their D had blocked shots like guys do today?) There's little incentive to choose the position.

Hey, just let the goalies sit out OT and put the net on its side, or maybe put a barrel in there you have to score in or you have to hit all three posts or something. Because this game is just about scoring, right? Make checking illegal too and allow any curve on a stick. Why not? Replace the nets with soccer goals. Play with a ball. Whatever Bettman wants. Or the sponsors. It's their game, after all.