Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Thoughts on NHL OT Rules


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 CanucksCaptain

CanucksCaptain

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 10

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:32 PM

Canucks had played on many shootout games this season and lost. To be honest, I'm starting to lose intersts on the shootouts. I found it very new and excited at first to see the shootout the first few seasons when it was introduced but now I really think it is stupid to decide a game on a shootout.

It is equalilent to deciding a NBA game in a dunk contest or a baseball game in a homerun derby. Yes, it would be fun at first but we'll probably lose interest in a couple of years.

Here is my idea: cut the season short to let's say a 72 games schedule and let them play 4 on 4 sudden death for the overtime until a team scores There will only be wins and loses for the standings. I don't like teams getting a single point when the games go into an overtime.

I think this will reduce injuries and mileages on the players as well. We do not need an 82 games schedule. What are your thoughts on this?

Edited by DBA, 13 March 2013 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0

#2 AriGold

AriGold

    Hairy Old

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:35 PM

Canucks had played on many shootout games this season and lost. To be honest, I've started to lose intersts on the shootouts. I found it very new and excited at first to see the shootout the first few seasons when it was introduced but now I really think it is stupid to decide a game on a shootout.

It is equalilent to deciding a NBA game in a dunk contest or a baseball game in a homerun derby. Yes, it would be fun at first but we'll probably lose interest in a couple of years.

Here is my idea: cut the season short to let's say a 72 games schedule and let them play 4 on 4 sudden death for the overtime until a team scores There will only be wins and loses for the standings. I don't like teams getting a single point when the games go into an overtime.

I think this will reduce injuries and mileages on the players as well. We do not need an 82 games schedule. What are your thoughts on this?


You think the NHL Owners are looking to lose even more money ? They will never ever ever agree to less games.
  • 0

Posted Image


#3 JordanEberle

JordanEberle

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:40 PM

Canucks had played on many shootout games this season and lost. To be honest, I'm starting to lose intersts on the shootouts. I found it very new and excited at first to see the shootout the first few seasons when it was introduced but now I really think it is stupid to decide a game on a shootout.

It is equalilent to deciding a NBA game in a dunk contest or a baseball game in a homerun derby. Yes, it would be fun at first but we'll probably lose interest in a couple of years.

Here is my idea: cut the season short to let's say a 72 games schedule and let them play 4 on 4 sudden death for the overtime until a team scores There will only be wins and loses for the standings. I don't like teams getting a single point when the games go into an overtime.

I think this will reduce injuries and mileages on the players as well. We do not need an 82 games schedule. What are your thoughts on this?


This is the problem with this idea. When it comes to media scheduling there is NO WAY this gets approved. How would you enjoy missing the first period of a Canucks game on Hockey Night in Canada because Toronto keeps their feed going through a extended overtime period. Right now games fit into a 2.5 hour slot which allows everything to work nicely. The media programming relies on consistency of games. How can you sell TV when you don't even know when the games are going to end. Personally I think the shootout is the best way to do it, it artificially allows the teams to be closer in the standings, and gives bottom tear teams a way to get points which keeps the league more fair.

Edit: I would definitely be a fan of a 72 game season though.

Edited by JordanEberle, 13 March 2013 - 05:41 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Credit: Garrett-6

#4 CrippledCanuck

CrippledCanuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 10

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:45 PM

Eliminate Shootouts and for Overtime keep four on four. For wins and losses do the following :

1 Regulation Win 2pts/Regulation Loss 0pts
2 Overtime Win 2pts/Overtime Loss 0pts
3 Make overtime ties 1pt each.

Giving a point for an overtime loss or a Shootout loss is basically rewarding failure.

Edited by CrippledCanuck, 13 March 2013 - 05:47 PM.

  • 1

#5 La Mauviette75

La Mauviette75

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 05:53 PM

shootouts are horrible.

id's say make it a three point system, 10 min of 4 on 4, no shootouts.

3 points for regulation win
2 for OT win
1 for tie
0 for loss
  • 3
Posted Image

O Ville Lumière, Sens la chaleur, de notre coeur

#6 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,994 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:04 PM

Make OT 10 min. 4v4

3 Reg. Win
2 OT win
1 OT loss/Tie
0 Reg. Loss
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#7 wizeman

wizeman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:12 PM

How about 4 on 4 for five minutes. Then 3 on 3 for five minutes. I doubt many teams can survive the 3 on 3 without quality scoring chances.

If not , then go to a shoot out.
  • 2

#8 gragnanifan1

gragnanifan1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:30 PM

How about 4 on 4 for five minutes. Then 3 on 3 for five minutes. I doubt many teams can survive the 3 on 3 without quality scoring chances.

If not , then go to a shoot out.


i LIKEY :P
  • 0
Posted Image
credit goes to allons-y
Posted Image NHL 13 GM Connected -GM of the Hurricanes http://forum.canucks...ed-league-xbox/

#9 Patrick Jane

Patrick Jane

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:05 PM

Overtime 10 Mins,,, Switch Ends
  • 0
Posted Image
Drouin#27 Halifax Mooseheads Star

Credit to Canucks Top Scorer

#10 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,236 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:18 PM

5 minutes of 4 on 4, then 5 minutes of 3 on 3

3 points for regulation win
2 points for OT win
1 point for OT loss
0 points for regulation loss

I've always wanted to see how 3 on 3 would work in the NHL
  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#11 kanucks1

kanucks1

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:42 PM

How about 4 on 4 for five minutes. Then 3 on 3 for five minutes. I doubt many teams can survive the 3 on 3 without quality scoring chances.

If not , then go to a shoot out.


I love this idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 0
Posted Image


CDC Fantasy League GM Chicago Blackhawks

#12 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,041 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:00 PM

I'd like the step after 4v4 to be 3v3 are opposed to the shootout. Now that would make for some exciting hockey.
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#13 CrippledCanuck

CrippledCanuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 10

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:02 PM

I'd like the step after 4v4 to be 3v3 are opposed to the shootout. Now that would make for some exciting hockey.


I concur , that would make for some fast paced exciting hockey. But what would happen if someone did something so horrible a penalty had to be called, would make for quite the debate on refs or when penalties should and shouldnt be called etc

Edited by CrippledCanuck, 13 March 2013 - 08:03 PM.

  • 0

#14 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,357 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

I've always thought shootouts were way to common.

I feel like shootouts should be a rather rare thing, like multiple overtimes in the playoffs.

They're so common that it's no big deal when one happens, but I'd like it to be more of a cool, unique thing.

EDIT:
I like the three point system proposed by some posters.

To clarify, I don't want shootouts completely gone from the game, I just want them to be more rare.

I'd suggest having 10 minute 4 on 4 OT to lessen the chances of shootouts.

If still no one scores in a 10 minute OT, then go to shootouts.

Edited by ajhockey, 13 March 2013 - 08:42 PM.

  • 0

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#15 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,041 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:47 PM

I concur , that would make for some fast paced exciting hockey. But what would happen if someone did something so horrible a penalty had to be called, would make for quite the debate on refs or when penalties should and shouldnt be called etc

Perhaps in a 3v3 situation if someone takes a penalty the opposing team gets to put an extra player on for the duration of the penalty. This would keep the player in the box, put his team shorthanded, and give the opposing team the powerplay they should be rightfully given due to the penalty being taken.
  • 1

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#16 CrippledCanuck

CrippledCanuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 10

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:36 PM

Perhaps in a 3v3 situation if someone takes a penalty the opposing team gets to put an extra player on for the duration of the penalty. This would keep the player in the box, put his team shorthanded, and give the opposing team the powerplay they should be rightfully given due to the penalty being taken.


I like that idea
  • 0

#17 Lulover88

Lulover88

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,723 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 13 March 2013 - 09:41 PM

I think that 3 on 3 for 5 minutes would be the most logical .. adding time would not be something the nhl would want to do .. and with 3 on 3 youd be sure to get a goal .. lotta fun for the players too .. Id love to see it
  • 0

#18 CanuckofSteel

CanuckofSteel

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 13

Posted 13 March 2013 - 10:29 PM

Why not do what the NBA does?

Continuous 5 minute overtimes, except after 2 OT's we go to a Shootout. Also, no more loser points!!

Win= 2pts
Lose= 0pts
OT Win= 2pts
OT Loss= 0pts
Shootout Win= 2pts
Shootout Loss= 0pts

Eliminate loser points, only wins and losses!!
  • 0

slo802.jpg

Thanks for the sweet sig Justdean10


#19 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:59 PM

Just switch ends like in the 2nd. Easy fix.
  • 0
Posted Image

#20 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:40 AM

With 3v3, eventually it's just be 1 player who goes on offense, with 2 guys staying back to prevent 3/2v1.
  • 0

#21 JJC

JJC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 09

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:28 AM

5 minutes of 4 on 4, then 5 minutes of 3 on 3

3 points for regulation win
2 points for OT win
1 point for OT loss
0 points for regulation loss

I've always wanted to see how 3 on 3 would work in the NHL

this this this
  • 0

COLTSTRONG

Posted Image

d d d d d d ddd d d d d d ddddddddd-Formally known as Jay Jay Sea


#22 canuckspride

canuckspride

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,790 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 04

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:48 AM

why not 5 minutes of 6v6 no goalies. problem solved.
  • 1

#23 TheRick

TheRick

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:57 AM

Why not do what the NBA does?

Continuous 5 minute overtimes, except after 2 OT's we go to a Shootout. Also, no more loser points!!

Win= 2pts
Lose= 0pts
OT Win= 2pts
OT Loss= 0pts
Shootout Win= 2pts
Shootout Loss= 0pts

Eliminate loser points, only wins and losses!!


I agree with getting rid of the loser point altogether because the whole point of it in the first place was to encourage teams to go for the win and not worry about losing a point like in the old OT format where there was no loser point! Since that wasn't working, that's when the shootout was introduce to break ties so there shouldn't be any need for the loser point!

A Shootout win should just be worth 1 point instead of 2 because I consider it a skill competition, and it would encourage teams to try to end it early if they want the valuable 2 points and move up the standings! It would also seperate the true Teams from the pretenders that rely on shootouts to win!

Edited by TheRick, 14 March 2013 - 12:11 PM.

  • 0

#24 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,935 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:06 PM

You've just started losing interest in the shootout? I lost interest long long ago.

I don't understand why they didn't go with BB's idea of 4 mins of 4v4 then 3 mins of 3v3 then shootout. 3v3 would be a lot more exciting and true to the game.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#25 6of1_halfdozenofother

6of1_halfdozenofother

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 06

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:39 PM

How about instead of a shootout, we have a slug-out? Put boxing gloves on the head coaches, and have them spar it out on centre ice. The first to get knocked out loses.

Then maybe both teams would play for the win.
  • 0
People who label others as bandwagoners, people who tell other people "how" to cheer for their team, "how" they should act or what they should wear to "support" their team, people who only want to hear positive thoughts and don't want to read about how the team can do better - these are people who are insecure and uncomfortable within their own skin.

I'll support my team the way I choose, thank you very much. You can choose to support your team the way you want to, and I won't judge you on it as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. I'll also be quick to point out where I think the team can do better, because identifying that there is a problem is the first step to fixing it; denying or ignoring a problem won't solve anything.

Go Canucks Go.

#26 Captain Can

Captain Can

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 07

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:04 PM

The shootout is too gimmicky, and the rules in the shootout are also too gimmicky. I say continuous OT starting with 4 on 4 for some amount of time, then 3 on 3 until a goal.

3 on 3 still sounds a bit gimmicky to me, but its better then a shootout. I'd be ok with continuous 4 on 4.
  • 0

#27 DooBie604

DooBie604

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 09

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

4 vs 4 for five minutes.
then 3 vs 3 until someone scores

Having a shootout is like having the players go rock, paper, scissors with the goalie for the extra point.

I'm all for the 3 vs 3 format until someone scores (shouldn't take too long with all that extra ice). As someone mentioned, taking a penalty 3 on 3 will let the other team put one player back on the ice. Don't see an issue with having it this way. More team orientated than what we have now.

Because of the shootout, penalty shots are far less interesting to me now. I used to get so excited whenever a penalty shot was rewarded cause you hardly ever saw a one on one with a goalie. Now it's just "meh".

This is the best format I think.
  • 1

#28 pianoman13

pianoman13

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 06

Posted 15 March 2013 - 12:22 PM

Ive always wanted to see what 3 on 3 would be like. If there is a penalty, then there is a penalty shot awarded, none of this putting an extra player on the ice. If there is a callable penalty it will usually be directly related to a scoring opportunity anyway, with only 3 skaters per side
  • 0

No videos in sig please. 


#29 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 15 March 2013 - 12:48 PM

A good intermediate step towards doing something about the OT/shootout mess is making the loser point a shootout-only thing. If you win in OT, it should be a standard, two-point win same as in regulation.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#30 DooBie604

DooBie604

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 09

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:00 PM

Ive always wanted to see what 3 on 3 would be like. If there is a penalty, then there is a penalty shot awarded, none of this putting an extra player on the ice. If there is a callable penalty it will usually be directly related to a scoring opportunity anyway, with only 3 skaters per side


An interesting idea as well.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.