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

Remembering John Garrett's Overtime Debate Article!


VancouverishCanucker

Recommended Posts

Do most of you Canucks fans remember John Garrett's Article that talks about "The Overtime Debate" on November 4 of last year? If not, here is the link below: http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=691509

Well, I have seen a video of Dan Rosen giving an update about 2 New Proposals that could possibly change the rules of how they are playing right now: 1. A new overtime proposal and 2. Video Reviews.

I have already written a comment in the overtime debate article that no one might comment on!

This is what I said "I have heard the NHL has been thinking Yesterday (Mon. Mar. 10, 2014) of changing the OverTime rules to having more extra time of 4-on-4 hockey instead of just having 5 minutes in overtime or might as well be thinking about having 3-on-3 hockey for 5 additional minutes if the games do not decide the game's winning goal in the 4-on-4 5 minute Overtime Periods before heading into a Shoot-Out game.

This tells me if the NHL decides to play 3-on-3 hockey for 5 Additional Minutes after a 5 minute 4-on-4 overtime period then I am glad to say that all of us fans, Mike Gillis, Ken Holland and John Garrett will be amazed that an OverTime Debate like this was planned out ahead of time before there came the day of a New Proposal Plan for OverTime (OT)!

The NHL.COM's Senior Writer Dan Rosen said "The New Format for OverTime will be announced in the month of June" which of course will be in the next 3 months from now!

Here is a video of Dan Rosen giving an update about the discussion of having 2 New Proposals! (Just copy the link below and paste it in the internet address bar):

http://video.canucks...=572543&catid=6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand this thread. I read it a few times and I'm still confused...sorry. Is this just a thread geared for discussion about the proposed changes to the current overtime system or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not really liking any of the docussed proposals tbh. Id still much rather have the 3 outcome proposal in which a regulation wins gets 3 points, OT win gets 2 and a shootout win gets 1. Loser gets nothing no matter what. There will only be a win and loss column. Too many times teams just play conservative playing to get to OT or the shootout, id rather see the teams fighting it out to the bitter end trying to get thise extra points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your words aren't entirely coherent!

I don't really understand this thread. I read it a few times and I'm still confused...sorry. Is this just a thread geared for discussion about the proposed changes to the current overtime system or something else?

Yeah, what is the OP's point? That he made a comment on an old article and suddenly it's being discussed at the GM meeting? And why is this Canucks Talk, because Garret made the article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, what does OP mean? 2nd of all, I'm sorry if all the ones that have read this so far is saying they aren't understanding all sentences correctly. But I hope you all understand what I was trying to say in my opinion if you have seen the link to the video about making new changes that could end up possible for the future. (Just so you know I am trying to get my words put together correctly so that all sentences are understandable for you). I don't have to be smart right now but you will never know what the changes will be until they announce them in June. I hope to hear good replies back from you soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Garrett is around many people in the hockey world so he knows what the current issues and topics of discussion are with players and management and that's why he wrote the article. It wasn't just some random lucky guess like winning the lottery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not really liking any of the docussed proposals tbh. Id still much rather have the 3 outcome proposal in which a regulation wins gets 3 points, OT win gets 2 and a shootout win gets 1. Loser gets nothing no matter what. There will only be a win and loss column. Too many times teams just play conservative playing to get to OT or the shootout, id rather see the teams fighting it out to the bitter end trying to get thise extra points.

I'd personally love to see this point system introduced, but I doubt the league would want to give 3 points for a win.

What about this:

Regulation and OT wins are both 2 points, but the loser only gets a point in OT. In the shootout, the winner gets 1 point and the loser nothing.

It would have a similar effect to what you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, what does OP mean? 2nd of all, I'm sorry if all the ones that have read this so far is saying they aren't understanding all sentences correctly. But I hope you all understand what I was trying to say in my opinion if you have seen the link to the video about making new changes that could end up possible for the future. (Just so you know I am trying to get my words put together correctly so that all sentences are understandable for you). I don't have to be smart right now but you will never know what the changes will be until they announce them in June. I hope to hear good replies back from you soon!

OP is "original poster".

Pay no attention to the grammar police there are a few that just troll the boards looking for spelling and grammar. You'd think they would have something better to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I have already tried to point out that playing 3-on-3 is John Garrett's Suggestion (Idea), I can only imagine if they do overtime 10 minutes of 4-on-4, (If tied) 10 minutes of 3-on-3, (If tied) 5 minutes of 2-on-2, and (If tied) 5 minutes of 1-on-1 before heading into a Shoot-Out. But I do know that will not even happen. All I know is they wouldn't want to play another 60 minutes in overtime. A half hour in overtime would be plenty enough to play before heading into a shoot-out. I might not know what all of you think but if you have a better idea then you could write it down. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I have already tried to point out that playing 3-on-3 is John Garrett's Suggestion (Idea), I can only imagine if they do overtime 10 minutes of 4-on-4, (If tied) 10 minutes of 3-on-3, (If tied) 5 minutes of 2-on-2, and (If tied) 5 minutes of 1-on-1 before heading into a Shoot-Out. But I do know that will not even happen. All I know is they wouldn't want to play another 60 minutes in overtime. A half hour in overtime would be plenty enough to play before heading into a shoot-out. I might not know what all of you think but if you have a better idea then you could write it down. :)

One on one... Lol.

Would be great for kess, he's good offensively good defensively and can't pass the puck. It's like he was made to play one on one. Lets do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not really liking any of the docussed proposals tbh. Id still much rather have the 3 outcome proposal in which a regulation wins gets 3 points, OT win gets 2 and a shootout win gets 1. Loser gets nothing no matter what. There will only be a win and loss column. Too many times teams just play conservative playing to get to OT or the shootout, id rather see the teams fighting it out to the bitter end trying to get thise extra points.

If an OT loser gets nothing, doesn't that make the three points irrelevant? Basically go back to 2 for the win, and 0 for a loss, no matter what. I understand the idea of less points for the types of wins, but in the end, feel a win is a win is a win. It's the loser points that confuse the standings too much IMO.

I am not a fan of 3 on 3 - it's not that less gimmicky than the shootout (and in some ways, arguably less of a hockey decision than the shoot-out - there are penalty shots fairly often in regulation play, but 3 on 3 almost never happens anymore).

Do fans really "need to see a winner" that badly? Play regulation, if tied, 5 or 10 minutes of 4 on 4 sudden death and if still tied, it's a tie (1 point each), Winner gets 2. Having tiers of wins and a complex point system is unneccesary IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to 5 on 5 for 5 minutes, then if nobody scores have the 2 fastest skaters race or toughest players line up for a man on man battle. Maybe a radar gun is set up in the net and the game can be decided by a hardest shot competition.Awww heck to speed it up have the 2 best face-off men meet at center ice game gets decided in 2 seconds flat.

Or go 5 on 5 for 5 and if no one scores call it draw and give both teams a single point. Get rid of 3 point games

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...