2013 World Championships

[moon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't hear European fans complaining that the WJC isn't fair when it's hosted in North America because of the small ice. Sniveling about this stuff just enhances our reputation as poor losers.

Reading here and on other sites I have heard that whining all the time from many European fans.

And i would like to see the sniveling that is going on.

Pointing out that it sucks that they lose in the shootout isn't whining.

[MissTeeks]

IIHF‏@IIHFHockey5m

Swedish D-man Alexander Edler suspended for remainder of #IIHFWorlds for knee-on-knee hit against Eric Staal.

http://www.iihf.com/competition/352/news/news-singleview-2013/recap/7950.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7123&cHash=c3f809 0961 …

[CaptainCrunch]

Good, total cheapshot punk move by Edler.

Hopefully someone from Carolina beats him half to death when Vancouver plays the Hurricanes next season.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If Canada loses its because of a part of the game I don't like or because Canada didn't care enough to win in the first place.

Right, because prior to the loss this palce was just full of people that loved the shootout and talk of how much these teams were locked in on this tournament

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't hear European fans complaining that the WJC isn't fair when it's hosted in North America because of the small ice. Sniveling about this stuff just enhances our reputation as poor losers.

Probably because they complain on a different forum in a different language. Fans always complain...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Canada cup is was created by the NHL and Hockey Canada and has followed NHL rules. I don't really care about any arguments against it. It's a moot point. The bottom line is that it's part of the rules and if you don't like it don't watch. It gets tiring hearing Canadian fans whine everytime the country loses a shootout. We all knew prior to the tournament that is was possible the team would be in a shootout in an important game so why using it as a crutch when we lose according to the rules of the tournament? Loser excuses end of story.

Who's making excuses? It's a stupid way to end a game. I don't see anyone saying it's a stupid way to end a game simply because Canada lost.

I do enjoy you ignoring the complete destruction of your earlier claim that "it's been part of international hockey forever". Nice to that you were just making it up as you went.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If the World Championships is just going to be half-hearted lark for a few NHLers who want something to do in May besides play golf, I'd just as soon we send a team made up of European-based Canadians. And I'm starting to miss the old Canadian National Team. At least they were a team, they were used to the big ice, they played a system, and the World Championships were a big deal to them.



I don't hear European fans complaining that the WJC isn't fair when it's hosted in North America because of the small ice. Sniveling about this stuff just enhances our reputation as poor losers.

You should listen closer, Europeans were livid when the 2010 Olympics was played on NHL ice.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by valo403

Who's making excuses? It's a stupid way to end a game. I don't see anyone saying it's a stupid way to end a game simply because Canada lost.

I do enjoy you ignoring the complete destruction of your earlier claim that "it's been part of international hockey forever". Nice to that you were just making it up as you went.

Unless you think 1992 was yesterday I'm not exactly sure what you are enjoying. Anyway carry on with the whining about how stupid the shootout is.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Saqe

You can´t compare nhl playoffs to a tournament with single game eliminations. The schedule is really tight in the tournament and with a single game elimination system a long over-time game would result in awful disadvantage for a team. Especially in the bronze and gold medal games when they are played within 24hrs of the semi-finals.

I can't see 4-on-4 overtime being that long to effect scheduling.

[Mr.Coffee]

I don't think the shootout is quite as random as others, it takes skill and ability still. People just don't like it because it's more individualistic in a team game, which is sort of counter-intuitive I guess... but too bad, that's the international game. Get guys on your team that are amazing at shootout.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I can't see 4-on-4 overtime being that long to effect scheduling.

4 on 4 OT is still a gimmick as hockey is a 5 on 5 sport. In a lot of ways a shootout is more pure than 4 on 4 hockey.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Unless you think 1992 was yesterday I'm not exactly sure what you are enjoying. Anyway carry on with the whining about how stupid the shootout is.

You said it has existed forever, when the fact is that it's a fairly new addition to the international game, unless of course you think international hockey started in 1992.

Again, who's whining? It's a stupid way to end a game, but it's necessary in a tournament like this. People think it's a stupid way to end NHL games, and it is, but again it's necessary.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

4 on 4 OT is still a gimmick as hockey is a 5 on 5 sport. In a lot of ways a shootout is more pure than 4 on 4 hockey.

Are you kidding me? 4 on 4 happens regularly in the course of a game. A penalty shot happens rarely. 4 on 4 still requires you to play offense and defense as a team. A shootout is a purely individual contest.

So tell me, how exactly is a shootout more pure hockey that 4 on 4?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

4 on 4 OT is still a gimmick as hockey is a 5 on 5 sport. In a lot of ways a shootout is more pure than 4 on 4 hockey.

Explanation? 4 on 4 at least strongly resembles 5 on 5 hockey. How is the shootout more pure?


Edit: Not to pile on, beaten to the punch above.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you kidding me? 4 on 4 happens regularly in the course of a game. A penalty shot happens rarely. 4 on 4 still requires you to play offense and defense as a team. A shootout is a purely individual contest.

So tell me, how exactly is a shootout more pure hockey that 4 on 4?

It isn't "more pure", but I would say 4 on 4 is still quite different from 5 on 5. There are players on the bench that will never see the ice in 4 on 4 hockey.

[SuperMatt18]

For something like the Olympics you can't have ongoing overtime.

As mentioned the schedule is planned pretty much to the minute. Having an extended overtime would lead to delays everywhere. Especially considering the same venue is used for multiple events each day.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

It isn't "more pure", but I would say 4 on 4 is still quite different from 5 on 5. There are players on the bench that will never see the ice in 4 on 4 hockey.

I agree, but it's a small step from 5 on 5 relative to the shootout, and it's something that you're going to see happen during the course of most regulation games.

[SuperMatt18]

The only way you could argue it is "more pure" is that shootouts to decide tied game have been around for longer than 4 on 4 overtime hockey.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you kidding me? 4 on 4 happens regularly in the course of a game. A penalty shot happens rarely. 4 on 4 still requires you to play offense and defense as a team. A shootout is a purely individual contest.

So tell me, how exactly is a shootout more pure hockey that 4 on 4?

Regular 4 on 4 isn't ice hockey. Ice hockey is 5 on 5 and penalties are a circumstantial event which leads to penalties being even even more uneven as a 4 on 3 powerplay is nothing like a 5 on 4 powerplay with the extra ice to work with. A shootout is a shootout. It isn't pretending to be a hockey game like 4 on 4 OT is. Its one of your skilled players one on one with the opposition's starting goaltender to determine the winner of a tie game. 4 on 4 hockey is a gimmick. A shootout is a shootout and performed in many different sports in the same one on one form.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Regular 4 on 4 isn't ice hockey. Ice hockey is 5 on 5 and penalties are a circumstantial event which leads to penalties being even even more uneven as a 4 on 3 powerplay is nothing like a 5 on 4 powerplay with the extra ice to work with. A shootout is a shootout. It isn't pretending to be a hockey game like 4 on 4 OT is. Its one of your skilled players one on one with the opposition's starting goaltender to determine the winner of a tie game.

Oh i see, 4 on 4 isn't hockey and neither is a shootout but somehow a shootout is a more pure version because it's a shootout? Well that right there is a genius argument. Really blew me away with that one.