Settling these games in shootouts is especially dumb when you consider alternatives like 3 on 3 which likely would have ended it sooner than a shootout would and is more of a team based result.
Problem with this is that a penalty would have too much impact. A 2 min 4-on-3 is almost a sure goal. I'd much rather end the game in a shoot-out than because of a bad call, a puck over the glass or too many men. Plus it risks making the kid in the penalty box into the big goat.
Yeah, I don't like the shoot out. Hate seeing a team game turn into the individual skills competition. IIHF annoys me when after the initial round let players repeat. Still hell of a game though.
TSN and all of Canada glorifies what Jonathan Toews did and his multiple shootout attempts, labeling it a 'heroic' performance.
Had Canada won, there would be no hand-wringing over a shootout win.
The Following User Says Thank You to howard_the_duck For This Useful Post:
TSN and all of Canada glorifies what Jonathan Toews did and his multiple shootout attempts, labeling it a 'heroic' performance.
Had Canada won, there would be no hand-wringing over a shootout win.
There would certainly be less hand-wringing, but there would still be some.
I, for one, have considered that game a joke since the day it was played for the exact same reason why last night's game ended up as a joke. No game that ends that way is worthy of glorification.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Thing is I thought the same thing about the glove tap, thought it was cool so I rewound it to watch again. Hart tried to tap but Parsons didn't even acknowledge him. There was no glove tap by Parsons. Just an observation.
Yeah, this is exactly what I saw. It must be why Parsons won.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Problem with this is that a penalty would have too much impact. A 2 min 4-on-3 is almost a sure goal. I'd much rather end the game in a shoot-out than because of a bad call, a puck over the glass or too many men. Plus it risks making the kid in the penalty box into the big goat.
I disagree.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
i dont understand why they went from a 20 minute 4 on 4 overtime in previous years back to 5 on 5 this year
I propose a new strategy for settling tied games in any league going forward.
First OT: 20 minutes, 5 on 5. Just like the normal game, but next goal wins.
Second OT: 20 minutes, 4 on 4. Opens up the ice a little, but it allows for it to remain a team game.
Third OT: 20 minutes, 3 on 3. NHL manages to decide a vast amount of games in OT with this format, and it's better than a shootout.
Fourth OT: 10 minutes, 2 on 2; 10 minutes 1 on 1. The 2 on 2 allows for some passing plays, but a ton of open ice. The 1 on 1 is almost like a shootout, except you have to go around a defender first before you can get a breakaway.
Fifth OT (if it ever got there): Shootout, but not the kind you're thinking of. We go outside and do a skeet shooting competition...
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
TSN and all of Canada glorifies what Jonathan Toews did and his multiple shootout attempts, labeling it a 'heroic' performance.
Had Canada won, there would be no hand-wringing over a shootout win.
Check the game thread - there were at least a couple of dozen posts stating how stupid the shootout is, prior to the shootout taking place.
There may have been a few fewer comments afterwards, had Canada won, but not many. And the message would have been the same: this is a terrible way to decide the champions of a major event.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Problem with this is that a penalty would have too much impact. A 2 min 4-on-3 is almost a sure goal. I'd much rather end the game in a shoot-out than because of a bad call, a puck over the glass or too many men. Plus it risks making the kid in the penalty box into the big goat.
Well we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings
And besides, the guy that doesn't score in the shootout, or the goalie that lets in the winner, is also a goat in that scenario, is he not?
TSN and all of Canada glorifies what Jonathan Toews did and his multiple shootout attempts, labeling it a 'heroic' performance.
Had Canada won, there would be no hand-wringing over a shootout win.
If Canada had won in the shootout, I'd be happy with the win. But I'd still be pissed in how it was achieved. The TSN panel agreed, and good on them for ripping into it every chance they got.
I don't know what kind of influence the NHL has on IIHF rules. But Bettman, Campbell, Burke, etc and every single NHL senior executive should be pushing for that rule change. It literally made one of the most exciting hockey games ever, into a complete flop at the end.
I don't mind it during an 82 game schedule. But for playoffs or international tournaments, it sucks the life out of everything. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with that.
If you think the shootout is fine after an epic game like that an prefer that over sudden death OT, your opinion is just plain wrong.
Can you guys go one day without whining like little babies about something that has 0 effect on your daily lives?
It doesn't matter how good the Flames are doing or whether or not we just witnessed one of the greatest WJC games ever, so many of you can't help but complain.
Nobody can just concede defeat and focus on the huge positives? Like how our Goalie prospect Parsons had the best goalie performance at the WJC since Price? Or how Adam Fox looks great and was a big part of the US win even though he didn't get a lot of ice time. Dube also looked great all tournament, but was snake-bitten on the scoresheet.
But oh no let's just complain about a rule that we fully knew existed before this tournament even started. It's definitely not pathetic to use this as an excuse as to why Canada lost.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bandwagon In Flames For This Useful Post:
Can you guys go one day without whining like little babies about something that has 0 effect on your daily lives?
It doesn't matter how good the Flames are doing or whether or not we just witnessed one of the greatest WJC games ever, so many of you can't help but complain.
Nobody can just concede defeat and focus on the huge positives? Like how our Goalie prospect Parsons had the best goalie performance at the WJC since Price? Or how Adam Fox looks great and was a big part of the US win even though he didn't get a lot of ice time. Dube also looked great all tournament, but was snake-bitten on the scoresheet.
But oh no let's just complain about a rule that we fully knew existed before this tournament even started. It's definitely not pathetic to use this as an excuse as to why Canada lost.
Sorry, but no. Shootouts are awful. This is not news.
The Following User Says Thank You to cofias For This Useful Post:
I propose a new strategy for settling tied games in any league going forward.
First OT: 20 minutes, 5 on 5. Just like the normal game, but next goal wins.
Second OT: 20 minutes, 4 on 4. Opens up the ice a little, but it allows for it to remain a team game.
Third OT: 20 minutes, 3 on 3. NHL manages to decide a vast amount of games in OT with this format, and it's better than a shootout.
Fourth OT: 10 minutes, 2 on 2; 10 minutes 1 on 1. The 2 on 2 allows for some passing plays, but a ton of open ice. The 1 on 1 is almost like a shootout, except you have to go around a defender first before you can get a breakaway.
Fifth OT (if it ever got there): Shootout, but not the kind you're thinking of. We go outside and do a skeet shooting competition...
In all seriousness I was thinking of precisely this during the championship game last night (except for the 2-on-2, 1-on-1 and shootout nonsense.)
The fact is that in the playoffs the vast majority of OT games are ended in the first extra period. The number of games that would even get to a third OT would be likely even smaller than it already is, and I warrant the level of play would be better overall because players would potentially have more time to pace themselves with fewer and fewer players on the ice.
I would not be at all opposed to this format.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Sorry, but no. Shootouts are awful. This is not news.
Then don't watch the WJC. It's part of the game.
And the quality of play was turning to crap anyways because of how gassed everyone was. I'm not sure if you guys noticed that the 3rd/4th lines were getting half the ice time in overtime because the top-2 lines were gassed.
These kids aren't used to playing every single night. In high intensity games no less where everyone is playing harder than they've ever played before. The longer you drag on overtime, the higher risk of injury gets with sloppy plays.
Do you think the players wanted to keep playing? No they didn't, even at the expense of cofias not enjoying the shootout.
I've bemoaned the shootout for a while. I hate it in the NHL too, but I understand they need something to end the games when there's 82 in a season
No excuse for a short tournament, especially in the championship game
the only issue is that the short tournament is really short. 7 games in 11 days making them play multiple overtimes would be really tough.
i think 4 on 4 OT for 20 minutes would have solved it. It has in previous years, USA winning in Sask, Sweden winning in Calgary, Finland winning in both 14 and 16. Only the 2000 final went to a shootout. That's like 1 out of 6.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 01-06-2017 at 09:10 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
And the quality of play was turning to crap anyways because of how gassed everyone was. I'm not sure if you guys noticed that the 3rd/4th lines were getting half the ice time in overtime because the top-2 lines were gassed.
These kids aren't used to playing every single night. In high intensity games no less where everyone is playing harder than they've ever played before. The longer you drag on overtime, the higher risk of injury gets with sloppy plays.
Do you think the players wanted to keep playing? No they didn't, even at the expense of cofias not enjoying the shootout.
Ask them. I bet they'd all want to keep playing until a winner was decided in non shootout fashion.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
Problem with this is that a penalty would have too much impact. A 2 min 4-on-3 is almost a sure goal. I'd much rather end the game in a shoot-out than because of a bad call, a puck over the glass or too many men. Plus it risks making the kid in the penalty box into the big goat.
Could not disagree more. Still better to see the game won on a penalty call than in a shootout.
And honestly in 3 on 3, the questionable calls are reduced significantly seems to me.
NHL regular season OK. World championship pool play? OK.
But deciding champion of the world? You need a better system. At a minimum, play 4 on 4 OT. Then 3 on 3 if still tied.
I know soccer goes to penalty kicks which is equally stupid but problem there is, games could never end if you waited for a goal. And after having played 90 minutes or more, not sure its realistic to go to a smaller squad on the field. Amd as much as I hate it, it does seem like penalty kicks is more dramatic. For some reason, the shootout doesn't even seem to have that.
The team gave up a two goal lead. Twice. They had 17 shots in OT and couldn't bury it. I don't love the shootout but this game shouldn't have made it to that point anyway. Everyone on the ice knows what's at stake, if you don't want it to end in a shootout, score.
I know it's easier said than done, but I don't see why it's such a terrible way to end it.
The Following User Says Thank You to speede5 For This Useful Post:
