Fixing 3-on-3 overtime

[CroFlames]

Do you guys really hate hockey so much you want all these radical rule changes?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I think I am on board with altering how points are awarded instead of trying to tweak on ice play. A big complaint I have had about hockey in general is that once scoring shut down in the 90's, teams no longer tried to outscore their opponents, they tried to give up less goals. Until that macro level strategy changes, then teams will always be way too cautious and ties and boring hockey will continue. We need to incentivize scoring and winning to try and shift things back.

I think rugby has a bonus standings point if you score a certain number of points in the game...

A lot ways that could work here, but I'd go to a 3-2-1-0 system, and each team can add a bonus point if they score 4 goals (maybe excluding ENG).

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Not sudden death - total goals in 5 minutes of OT. No offside or icing. Pucks live off the net.

And you should be allowed to score multiple times on one play (banging in goal rebound). Love it.

[speede5]

I like the idea of a full 5 min 3v3 but the stats would get messed up. Ovechkin gets 3 goals in the extra frame and all of a sudden we have to asterisk all his records.

Keep it the way it is and go to a 3 point must system.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by dobbles

This is somewhat off topic as we are talking more generically, but the concept has been brought up in relation to overtime so I will go with it.

I actually would really like to see the blue line go away. Just get rid of offsides and see what that does to the game. So much of the grindy 90s nature of hockey has to do with trying to gain and maintain the blue line. I would reallt like to see how hockey evolves without it. And it could be a much less 'radical' idea than changing net and rink sizes which would really get people in a tizzy.

Didn't one of the farm leagues try this for a bit after Lockout 2005: The Quest for More Money?

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think rugby has a bonus standings point if you score a certain number of points in the game...

A lot ways that could work here, but I'd go to a 3-2-1-0 system, and each team can add a bonus point if they score 4 goals (maybe excluding ENG).




And you should be allowed to score multiple times on one play (banging in goal rebound). Love it.

Rugby awards a bonus point for scoring 4 tries and also gives the losing team a point if they are within 7 points.


Wins are 4 points though in that system. I'd be interested in seeing this tried in a lower league.

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Like a pin ball bonus round!

Or keep adding a puck every minute there is no goal.

https://youtu.be/z0Zst4pMzh0

[Itse]

I've mentioned this before, but my suggestion would be to have the shootout before the game, and make that the tiebreaker. That way the game is never tied, one team always has to push for goals and there would be no "playing to make the OT/SO".

I think it would also work well as sort of a pregame ritual to build excitement, and it would make games more equal to each other in length, since every game would be SO + regulation.

Obviously this would eliminate OT.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Once you cross the red line, if the puck goes back out it’s a penalty to touch it first. Kind of like a delayed penalty. Now you have a choice of letting the other team take possession in your half or taking a penalty.

Or would that make teams even more cautious?

I could potentially get on board with this but I would want to see 3 on 2 powerplay vs 4 on 3. This should be for any penalty in OT.

[OutOfTheCube]

Hot take: 3-on-3 OT was never very good to begin with.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by speede5

I like the idea of a full 5 min 3v3 but the stats would get messed up. Ovechkin gets 3 goals in the extra frame and all of a sudden we have to asterisk all his records.

Keep it the way it is and go to a 3 point must system.

Well, rule changes and schedule increases have affected scoring all the time, so I don’t think there’d be asterisks.

[SutterBrother]

Coaching staff for each team plays the OT.

[timbit]

Scoring is not imperative to categorize a game as being exciting.

Quality scoring chances are.

The game, at this point, has become very exciting, for the most part.

3 v 3 in overtime has become “overcoached”, although still exciting.

Perhaps, the solution is to keep the puck moving forward in 3 v 3.

Perhaps, elimination of moving the puck , backwards , more than 2 lines would enhance the game , in overtime.

The punitive measure being a faceoff in the offending team’s zone.

Not a huge change, but an enhancing one.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Itse

I've mentioned this before, but my suggestion would be to have the shootout before the game, and make that the tiebreaker. That way the game is never tied, one team always has to push for goals and there would be no "playing to make the OT/SO".

I think it would also work well as sort of a pregame ritual to build excitement, and it would make games more equal to each other in length, since every game would be SO + regulation.

Obviously this would eliminate OT.

You don't want a shootout every game, or be a regular part of every game. It's just a last resort. I think less than 15% of games go to a shootout. Why waste time for the other 85%?

[jammies]

A point in the standings for every 5 goals you score. Incentive problem solved.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by jammies

A point in the standings for every 5 goals you score. Incentive problem solved.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

Agreed, it is called a bonus point in rugby:

To encourage attacking rugby and more tries in the game, a bonus point is awarded to teams who score four or more tries while a team can also earn a bonus point for losing by 7 points or less. Note that a team can only earn a maximum of five points in a match.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You don't want a shootout every game, or be a regular part of every game. It's just a last resort. I think less than 15% of games go to a shootout. Why waste time for the other 85%?

Because it would change the dynamic of the game, removing playing to make the OT and then playing for the SO.

Games would go back to ending at the buzzer, like they should, but you would still always have a winner.

[Don Benji]

It's already gimmicky. How about 3 on 3 with no offsides and no line changes. At least you reduce the amount of shootouts. If a player gets injured his replacement has to do a shot of tequila before hitting the ice.

[Strange Brew]

How about this. Get rid of the loser point for games that go to a shootout but keep it for games decided in OT. That would motivate teams to try and win in OT and avoid the shootout at all costs.

[Kipper_3434]

There's plenty of viable solutions. What is the viable motivation for the league though? Loser points make the league artificially more balanced and competitive to casual fans. The only solutions we might see are all gimmicks. Just leave the playoffs alone, at least thats really hockey .

[Goriders]

What about playing star wars to decide the game? All the players start on the goal line and try to make it down the ice without getting hit by a puck shot by the healthy scratched players between the bluelines. Anyone hit has to help the shooters in subsequent rounds.

Last player standing’s team is the winner. No slapshots or raising the puck. Or use sponge pucks.