Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NHL GMs looking at losing the shootout


Recommended Posts

So, after a few years of trying, Detroit Red Wings general manager Ken Holland decided to try again. And, thankfully, it appears he is finally making progress in the NHL boardroom.

Holland has long been a proponent of having fewer games decided by the shootouts. Turns out, after the NHL GMs met in Toronto on Tuesday, he now has more of his fellow managers sharing his opinion. Holland has proposed that the league expand the current four-on-four overtime period beyond five minutes.

And that is a great idea.

As exciting as the shootout has been, it has, in the eyes of many, also run its course. Managers, coaches and players alike are tired of seeing too many games decided by a gimmick, however entertaining it may be, especially with playoff races so tight and the stakes so high.

They are right. The solution for the NHL is to extend its overtime period, which is often wildly entertaining itself. If it doesn’t settle the game, then go to the shootout. But give them a chance to end the game playing, not in a penalty shot competition as often as possible. But know this: The shootout is not disappearing any time soon under Gary Bettman’s watch, but we may see fewer of them.

Holland has proposed an additional five minutes of 4-on-4, which is a great idea. Other managers have suggested a few more minutes of 4-on-4, then switching to 3-on-3. Whatever the format, the extension would be a positive move. The managers will reconvene in March to discuss the proposal further, but Holland admits this is the most support and traction his idea has ever received. “There certainly appeared to be an appetite to expand the OT,” he says.

Hopefully that appetite doesn’t change by the spring, though the approval of the managers is still just the first step in the approval process.

In other news: As you would expect the GMs don’t have an appetite to ban fighting, and shouldn’t, though some would like to see stiffer penalties and most don’t like the idea of staged fights. So expect more suggestions for tweaking the rules, as opposed to taking any drastic steps.

But most, if not all, agreed they did not like Ray Emery’s fight with Braden Holtby a few weeks ago. Nothing was resolved in the meeting, but there was a suggestion to perhaps invoke an automatic suspension for a goalie who leaves his crease and crosses the centre line to start a fight with the opposing netminder. Figuring out all the details still must be done, but that appears to be the direction the GMs want to go, knowing any tweaks need board and competition-committee approvals. “We were pretty heavily in favour of going that route,” says Boston GM Peter Chiarelli.

Another good step if they follow it. What Emery did shouldn’t happen without additional punishment. Had Holtby been beating up a Flyer, then Emery would have been within his rights to step in without facing the proposed suspension.

The managers are also discussing expanded video review and possibly instituting a coach’s challenge, but again the logistics of implementing that kind of change are massive. But the prevailing sentiment is they have the technology, let’s use it to get things right as often as possible. That’s a pretty healthy way of thinking.

There is still lots of time before the GMs reconvene in Florida in March, there is still lots for them to consider and fine tune, but the business they put on the table all seems pretty positive.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-gms-looking-at-losing-the-shootout/

I have to say I agree...it just isn't fair to see so many games end in the hands of a shootout which at times doesn't result in the outcome of the effort that some teams deserve. This is hockey, not a free for all shootout game and I think OT and then possibly a tie is more appropriate than finishing a game with a shootout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate it as much as everyone else. It's a fast way to decide the game. I do feel as if the main five minute overtime should be 3 on 3 instead. A ten minute overtime is long.

I'm not a fan of 3on 3. As much as it's technically possible, it's pretty much not really any more realistic as the shoutout. 4 on 4 is more exciting IMO. Personally I like getting rid of the shoot out and sticking to the 5 min 4 on 4 OT. Get rid of the loser point though - 2 for the win and if tied after OT, single point each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of 3on 3. As much as it's technically possible, it's pretty much not really any more realistic as the shoutout. 4 on 4 is more exciting IMO. Personally I like getting rid of the shoot out and sticking to the 5 min 4 on 4 OT. Get rid of the loser point though - 2 for the win and if tied after OT, single point each.

My thoughts exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of 3on 3. As much as it's technically possible, it's pretty much not really any more realistic as the shoutout. 4 on 4 is more exciting IMO. Personally I like getting rid of the shoot out and sticking to the 5 min 4 on 4 OT. Get rid of the loser point though - 2 for the win and if tied after OT, single point each.

Problem is that you have people playing to protect the point, instead of trying to win. Which is the problem with OT in general, so many teams seem to play for the guaranteed point and it makes for a stale third period.

JMbJBge.jpg

They need to go with the 3 point system IMO if they want teams to gun for the regulation win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of 3on 3. As much as it's technically possible, it's pretty much not really any more realistic as the shoutout. 4 on 4 is more exciting IMO. Personally I like getting rid of the shoot out and sticking to the 5 min 4 on 4 OT. Get rid of the loser point though - 2 for the win and if tied after OT, single point each.

Agree with not liking 3 on 3. This is the pros right? Not street hockey, so 4 on 4 or bust. The problem with tie games, and this dates back to [citation and fact needed] the season that the point was awarded to the overtime loser, is that teams will still play for a tie right? Especially if they squeak into OT against a stronger team. So you addressed that in getting rid of the loser point in order to ensure coaches don't play to defensive [read:boring] in OT. Well, how about 0 points for a tie. 2 for a regulation win. 2 for an OT win. 0 points for a tie.

Remember why the shootout started? Boring-ass overtimes being defensively chessed out to a single point draw a la Jacques Lemaire and the Minnesota Wild. Well, 0 points for a tie should make for some fireworks.

Never happen, but boring OT problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the shootouts. I think they bring another dynamic to the game. I remember when they were first brought in after the lockout, Jussi Jokinen was known as the best shootout specialist (we sorely lacked one at the time, though Linden was adequate). But if they extend OT to 10 minutes, that's not such a bad idea either. Just no ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes please, get rid of the shootout (I feel the same sentiments towards soccer too)

Soccer and Hockey are team games, it shouldn't come down to a few good shootout artists to decide a game.. Especially when the points, and games become crucial down the stretch

Shootouts are individual efforts, not down with it. Not a true demonstration of how the sports should be played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shootouts are exciting for sure but I hate the extra point being awarded for that. The extra point earned through shootout is not earned through a team effort but effort of few individuals (shooters and the goalie) and really has no place in hockey, which is a team sport. 4-on-4 for 10 minutes is a good idea but I think the game should end as a tie rather than going to shootout if tied after 10 minutes of OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that you have people playing to protect the point, instead of trying to win. Which is the problem with OT in general, so many teams seem to play for the guaranteed point and it makes for a stale third period.

JMbJBge.jpg

They need to go with the 3 point system IMO if they want teams to gun for the regulation win.

Arguably, there are lots of scenarios where teams play shut down: up by a few, for the tie etc. I don't think you can get around it completely. At least if no loser points, there is a chance of getting 0 if the other team scores so there is motivation to play for the win. Cruising to a tie knowing they'll get at least one goes away at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes please, get rid of the shootout (I feel the same sentiments towards soccer too)

Soccer and Hockey are team games, it shouldn't come down to a few good shootout artists to decide a game.. Especially when the points, and games become crucial down the stretch

Shootouts are individual efforts, not down with it. Not a true demonstration of how the sports should be played.

Agree with your points on removing shootout from NHL as its not a team effort. But for soccer, it needs to be there to protect the players. The penalty shootouts are employed in soccer only in international tournaments anyways like World Cup and Euro. This is because in soccer, you are allowed only 3 substitutions for the whole game. With lower chances of goal than hockey, if soccer played on until the someone scored, the game could go on for a while with no more subs allowed. The players will be dead tired and will surely lose the next match even if they win that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...