AHL Overtime method doing the job

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hesla

So you stop time ? Not sure how to get around that.

Yeah, you stop time, just like any other period. Sucks if you are pressing, but that's the same at the end of the third, or the end of OT.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, you stop time, just like any other period. Sucks if you are pressing, but that's the same at the end of the third, or the end of OT.

It's contrary to the whole point. You want somebody to score. Blowing the whistle when someone has zone presence because it's time to switch to 3v3 gets in the way of that.

Just imagine how annoyed you'd be the first time your team has pressure and the whistle blows.

[Erick Estrada]

The game of hockey is played 5 on 5 even strength, end of story so whether it be 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or shootout they are all gimmicks made to abolish tie games. I don't care if people hate shootouts but you can't call one a gimmick and not the other as 3 on 3 IMO is a scrimmage not real hockey.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The game of hockey is played 5 on 5 even strength, end of story so whether it be 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or shootout they are all gimmicks made to abolish tie games. I don't care if people hate shootouts but you can't call one a gimmick and not the other as 3 on 3 IMO is a scrimmage not real hockey.

Is it not closer to "real hockey" than a shootout though?

[hummdeedoo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The game of hockey is played 5 on 5 even strength, end of story so whether it be 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or shootout they are all gimmicks made to abolish tie games. I don't care if people hate shootouts but you can't call one a gimmick and not the other as 3 on 3 IMO is a scrimmage not real hockey.

Not sure why you say 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3 is not real hockey because in the course of regular play those situations can happen.

I find the 4 on 4 play exciting to watch so I don't mind seeing it used to end tie games - assuming of course your goal is to eliminate tie games.

I would be Ok if they went back to ties - certainly better than the point system they are presently using.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The game of hockey is played 5 on 5 even strength, end of story so whether it be 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or shootout they are all gimmicks made to abolish tie games. I don't care if people hate shootouts but you can't call one a gimmick and not the other as 3 on 3 IMO is a scrimmage not real hockey.

There are both gimmicks, but one is significantly less offensive to the core nature of the sport.

[Saqe]

I don't really see shootouts being more gimmicky since penalty shots also happen during the game.

Although I think 3v3 and continuous play is going to be more entertaining than watching teams taking penalty shots in turns.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Just say no to ties. Play until some one wins like the playoffs

You simply can't. Some games could go hours. During the week, scheduling, etc. It would simply not work with TV schedules, broadcasting and just attendance.

I never really had a problem with ties in the regular season. Why did that ever change? Stupid.

[Winsor_Pilates]

The only issue with ties was when both teams would be afraid to lose and just hold on to the 1 point. Too often where both teams just laid off the gas and drifted through a boring 5 minutes.

[greyshep]

I am all for having games decided by team play instead of an individual skills competition. Shootouts are ridiculous.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The only issue with ties was when both teams would be afraid to lose and just hold on to the 1 point. Too often where both teams just laid off the gas and drifted through a boring 5 minutes.

Congrats you played 60 mins, here is your participation point for a tie

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Congrats you played 60 mins, here is your participation point for a tie

Don’t like that? Here’s the alternative they chose instead:

Congrats, you played 60 minutes, here is your participation point. Now you get to play for a third point that we added just for you, because you are so special.

The loser point rewards teams for not deciding the game in regulation. Is anyone surprised that the number of games decided in regulation went down because of it?

[Fire]

Just when the Flames were getting good at shootouts.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Don’t like that? Here’s the alternative they chose instead:

Congrats, you played 60 minutes, here is your participation point. Now you get to play for a third point that we added just for you, because you are so special.

The loser point rewards teams for not deciding the game in regulation. Is anyone surprised that the number of games decided in regulation went down because of it?

Is anyone surprised that the games have been more exciting ever since? I see your logic, but how is this such a bad thing?

Ties were removed to increase entertainment value and the NHL came out of the lockout better because of tweaks like that. It means more hockey, more goals, more nail biting action. Anyone opposed is clearly just scared of having a heart attack while watching overtime.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There are both gimmicks, but one is significantly less offensive to the core nature of the sport.

I don't buy that as it's your opinion. The core nature of the sport is 5 on 5. There is no difference between a handful of guys playing 3 on 3 than a couple of guys just taking shots on a goaltender. Neither are offensive but neither are the real game of hockey.

[GioforPM]

How about a fight to decide it? McGrattan extends his career a few years.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Saqe

I don't really see shootouts being more gimmicky since penalty shots also happen during the game.

Penalty shots very rarely happen. They've also been around for a long time and are the result of an infraction that happened during the game. Shootouts are a gimmick that should have never left Europe.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't buy that as it's your opinion. The core nature of the sport is 5 on 5. There is no difference between a handful of guys playing 3 on 3 than a couple of guys just taking shots on a goaltender. Neither are offensive but neither are the real game of hockey.

No difference? What about the ability to defend against the other team, or heck, the ability to pass to a teammate?

Its fundamentally different, I don't see how someone could argue otherwise.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Is anyone surprised that the games have been more exciting ever since?

I’m not surprised by it, because I have never observed any such thing. In fact, the first few years after the loser point was brought in had the worst and least entertaining hockey in the modern era. The game did not begin to improve until 2005, when the rules about obstruction and interference were drastically revised and actually began to be enforced. The loser point had nothing to do with that change.

Ties were removed to increase entertainment value

Ties were removed because the NHL thought that the average American sports fan could not understand them, and would become a hockey fan if only he were not confused by such terribly complex things. (Since then, millions of American sports fans have taken to soccer, which still has ties, and nobody complains about that. Oops.)

There was at one time a movement to divide hockey games into four quarters for the same reason, but that was too drastic, and for once, the traditionalists defeated it.

Anyone opposed is clearly just scared of having a heart attack while watching overtime.

I am opposed because I am tired of falling asleep when a game is tied in the third period and both teams are obviously playing it safe until the extra point comes into play.

Don’t try to read your opponents’ minds. You are not good at it.

[Vulcan]

In fact with introducing the loser point, teams like the Wild played for the tie from the opening face off. This made the trap much more effective as a full time game plan. If the team could make it through the full 60 minutes in a tie, they still had OT and a SO to pick up the two points. The percentages worked for them to play boring hockey for a tie.