Down by the River Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 As per GM meetings. See Friedman's twitter feed. Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC · 1h1 hour ago On 3 on 3, GMs want it...will be up to NHL and NHLPA to sort out if right away at start of OT or later. 19 retweets8 favorites Reply Retweet19 Favorite8 More Sounds like the only debate will be whether OT starts at 3-3 or if they go 4-4 for three minutes then 3-3 for 4 minutes (or some other time breakdown). Personally, I love this. Far more entertaining than the shootout. Can't wait to see the Sedins both out on a 3-3 versus the typical one FWD two DMAN set-up. Funnily enough, the Canucks have just started to get good at shootouts. Nevertheless, I'll be happy to see them reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 so would it be 3 on 2 if one team were to take a penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 As per GM meetings. See Friedman's twitter feed. Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC · 1h1 hour ago On 3 on 3, GMs want it...will be up to NHL and NHLPA to sort out if right away at start of OT or later. 19 retweets8 favorites Reply Retweet19 Favorite8 More Sounds like the only debate will be whether OT starts at 3-3 or if they go 4-4 for three minutes then 3-3 for 4 minutes (or some other time breakdown). Personally, I love this. Far more entertaining than the shootout. Can't wait to see the Sedins both out on a 3-3 versus the typical one FWD two DMAN set-up. Funnily enough, the Canucks have just started to get good at shootouts. Nevertheless, I'll be happy to see them reduced. Can't wait to see the Sedins cycle the puck and not register a shot. Jokes aside, I'd rather see the OT be 3-3 but a longer duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 so would it be 3 on 2 if one team were to take a penalty? I think it would then move to 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 so would it be 3 on 2 if one team were to take a penalty? I assume it would be a 4 on 3 PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Marchand Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 so would it be 3 on 2 if one team were to take a penalty? They'd probably make it a 4 on 3 since you can't have fewer than 3 skaters (excluding the goalie) on the ice at a time, just like they have 5 on 3 in OT instead of 4 on 2. 3 on 3 might be a gimmick to some, but it still resembles hockey more than a shootout does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Personally, I'm a fan of the shootout. Just like soccer, it may not be the ideal way to finish the game, but nobody stops watching when it happens. And it's arguably the most memorable part of any game when it does occur. That said, I understand why they are doing this. I would just like to see the NHL make a decision on something and stick to it. They've been doing the shootout for nearly 10 seasons and the fans aren't complaining. Unless I'm missing something, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Personally, I'm a fan of the shootout. Just like soccer, it may not be the ideal way to finish the game, but nobody stops watching when it happens. And it's arguably the most memorable part of any game when it does occur. That said, I understand why they are doing this. I would just like to see the NHL make a decision on something and stick to it. They've been doing the shootout for nearly 10 seasons and the fans aren't complaining. Unless I'm missing something, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I think there could be a bit of a concern when you start looking at teams with a similar number of points but a large discrepancy in regulation and OT wins. LA has as many ROW as Chicago, but is barely in a playoff spot. NYR has won 5 more games than ANA, but has the same # of points (and has played three fewer games). I would like to see teams rewarded for good play, and although 3 v. 3 is still a bit gimmicky, it is more likely to reward more talented teams than the shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 If it cuts down on shootouts I'm for it. At least 3 on 3 resembles a team sport more than the skills competition/shootout does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I'd prefer simply extending the 4 on 4 OT to 8-10 minutes instead of 5. That said, 3 on 3 is still better than a shootout. I don't dislike shootouts per se, I'd just prefer them to be much more uncommon. If teams only had 2 or 3 shootouts in a year, they'd be much more exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyville88 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 halle-freaking-lujah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Bo 53 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 so would it be 3 on 2 if one team were to take a penalty? Or if a team takes two penaltys is a 3 on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_The_Schneid! Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 What was the problem with ending a game in a tie? If it does go to 3-3 eliminate the shootout entirely If they can't score after a 4-4 and a 3-3 just call it a tie I never really understood the shootout to begin with why does one team need to get the 2 points? Other sports if you lose in overtime you don't get a single point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 "Personally, I'm a fan of the shootout. Just like soccer, it may not be the ideal way to finish the game, but nobody stops watching when it happens." I don't watch the shoot outs already, gimmick. Why not faster skater comp or the two designated tough guys line up at center and slug it out. Never had a problem with tie games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephnick Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 They do it in some junior leagues that I've watched live and it's always a great time. I'm for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 love how the NHL loves to overcomplicate everything. 3on3? WTF is that sh!t. So stupid just make 4on4 longer. 5 minutes is not enough time. Make the OT 10 minutes of 4on4 and if it isn't solved then it's a tie. F*ck Bettman needs to get struck by lighting while holding hands with Bill Daly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PredsFanFromLa Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think it would then move to 4-3. That is the way our minor league does 3 on 3 in OT,if a penalty is called and it extends in to OT,it becomes 4-3 until the penalty expires,because you can't play 3 on 2 aleast not in our league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 This is going to be awesome. Imagine Ovechkin Backstrom Green V Crosby Malkin Letang It would be insane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonaldBrashear Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 If the league doesn't want to do Tie games, then I think they should just go with 3 on 3 off the bat. 5 minutes of 3 on 3, and then a shootout. But ideally, it would be 5 minutes of 4 on 4 like we have now, and then 5 minutes of 3 on 3 replaces the shootout. Hell, you could just make it 3 on 3 hockey indefinitely until someone scores. I mean, I know it's not the playoffs, but really, how many games would go on that long with 3 on 3 in a regular season game? If neither team scores then they get punished by a longer period. You wouldn't need an intermission because 3 on 3 hockey is sustainable for a long time (longer breaks for players on the bench), and if the goalie gets tired put the backup in. Frankly if a 3 on 3 period went on for more than 10 or 15 minutes it would be hilarious and both teams would be embarrassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.