Does the League Need to Rethink These 2 Things?

[Passe La Puck]

Oddly I don't remember puck over the glass being much of a thing until they made it a penalty and that was when the NHL was trying to turn hockey into lacrosse because apparently games need to have 18 goals for americans to not lose interest...or something.

[lazypucker]

The first thing the league needs to fix is the loser point. Just implement the 3-2-1 point system already!!

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Look at how much hockey the Jackets have played over the past 2 weeks. I have a hard time believing that it isn't taking a toll on them.

Why do you ask a question and then argue one side of the opinions ?

Just change the thread title to “I don’t think we should have OT until a goal is scored”

And still no one will agree

[Kidder]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

What if it was the Flames who went through a 5OT game and, as a result, were too gassed/depleted to make a deep playoff run? Would you feel differently about it then?

.

100% not at all.

I would enjoy the heck out of watching that overtime game and not lament the lack of a deep playoff run of which I’ve experienced once in my remembered lifetime.

But speaking of, game 6 of the Vancouver series in 2004. Flames made an epic comeback after trailing 4-0 in the second, only to lose in triple overtime. They would go on to win game 7 (in overtime) before playing 19 more to make game 7 of the Stanley Cup final.

So an epically long game doesn’t automatically translate into an early playoff exit. It translates into a lifelong memorable experience.

Playoff hockey is the best. Why are we keen to limit bonus sudden death playoff hockey?

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

Oddly I don't remember puck over the ice being much of a thing until they made it a penalty and that was when the NHL was trying to turn hockey into lacrosse because apparently games need to have 18 goals for americans to not lose interest...or something.

Most of the hockey plays I remember featured the puck over the ice.

[Passe La Puck]

...except floor hockey! Over the GLASS!

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Slanter

If you want to change something for the better, start with not writing click-bait titles.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Why do you ask a question and then argue one side of the opinions ?

Just change the thread title to “I don’t think we should have OT until a goal is scored”

And still no one will agree

Not really understanding what you're getting at here? I asked an honest question, nothing more, nothing less. No "clickbait" as you say, just an honest question. A number of people offered one side of the discussion, so I provided the other. Not sure why you're taking issue with anything I've said here...?

[powderjunkie]

My solution would be to treat icing and puck over glass the same. You get 3 per period (maybe 4 or 5; I dunno what the avg is) where the consequence is no line-change. Every instance after that is a 1 minute penalty.


The risk is that teams will be too cautious in breaking out, but there would also be more incentive for aggressive forechecking.

[Mathgod]

One other thing I'll mention. The tennis world eventually realized that they had to do something about the length of matches at major tournaments. This is the match that led them to implement a rule change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isner%..._Championships

I could see something similar happen with hockey at some point. Everyone may disagree with me now, but one day things might change.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

One other thing I'll mention. The tennis world eventually realized that they had to do something about the length of matches at major tournaments. This is the match that led them to implement a rule change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isner%..._Championships

I could see something similar happen with hockey at some point. Everyone may disagree with me now, but one day things might change.

The thing with tennis though, is that they need the court for the next match (like the bubble this year). But in every other year, that doesn't apply to hockey

[calgarygeologist]

I generally like the current playoff OT format and enjoyed watching the extended periods tonight. But, I could get on board with a format change with reduced players on the ice. For example, first OT remains 5-5 for 20 minutes. Second OT goes to 4 on 4 for 20 minutes, third and subsequent OT become 3 on 3. It would be less of a gimmick than a shootout and it has the added benefit that players get a bit more rest if the game goes to two or more OTs. I might even support skipping 5 on 5 OT and going straight to 4 on 4 in the first OT period.

[afc wimbledon]

The idea that the puck over the glass gets a penalty and icing just gets a faceoff always struck me as asinine, they are two variations of the same thing, making it a faceoff like icing but giving the refs discretion to call a 2 minute if they think it is deliberate always struck me as the answer, mind you I'd also let the refs call a deliberate icing

[FireGilbert]

At first I hated the puck over the glass rule, since it was only ever called because of bad puck luck and I thought having no change like icing would be acceptable, but now I'm okay with it. The odd annoying penalty is a small price to pay for speeding up the game. We don't want to go back to the days of defensemen repeatedly dumping it over the glass to catch their breath.

As far as never ending OT games that's okay too. It's neat quirk of playoff hockey that doesn't come up very much and adds to the difficulty of winning the Cup. Maybe you take longer intermission breaks going forward to allow more time to be spent fixing the ice and catching breath or heck I guess I'd be okay going to 3 on 3 in like 4OT.

[Tsawwassen]

It ain't broken, so don't fix it. The long OT doesn't happen that often.

[Itse]

It hasn't just limited players intentionally dumping the puck over the glass, it also significantly limits players willingness to play the puck off the glass and out, because in high tension situations they might accidentally go too high and get a penalty. The risk of an icing call would not have anything near the same effect.

This is all just good for the game. More offensive pressure is good, and encouraging teams to make hockey plays like passing and skating to get the puck out is good. The chance of that penalty happening also encourages forechecking, which is good.

The penalty sucks when it hits you, but the risk of penalty is purely beneficial to the game.

I also don't really see the big problem with those penalties in general. Those penalties mostly happen when the attacking team is putting pressure on the defending team, so in that sense those powerplays are almost always "earned".

[squiggs96]

There have been 13 games that have gone more than 3 OT periods. Five of those were elimination games. I'm not sure we need to throw a completely radical rule into the mix for something that has happened 8 times in the last 88 years. It's like when the emergency goalie went in for Carolina and there was panic that they should alter the rule for a situation that has only happened once in the history of the NHL. These are both overreactions.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The idea that the puck over the glass gets a penalty and icing just gets a faceoff always struck me as asinine, they are two variations of the same thing, making it a faceoff like icing but giving the refs discretion to call a 2 minute if they think it is deliberate always struck me as the answer, mind you I'd also let the refs call a deliberate icing

What part of the NHL referees decision making process and history has proven to you that they are able to make the correct call every time? We see time and time again missed calls, bad calls, no calls, and even with video review they make the wrong call. Currently they have discretion on whether the player was using a kicking motion to put the puck in the net. Even when it looks crystal clear, they have gone the other way. If you give them the discretion to penalize if they feel it's deliberate, you'll see it being officiated differently between different officials, and even in the same game. By making the rule cut and dried, you are giving a level playing field. If not, every single time the puck goes over the glass the player will argue it wasn't deliberate.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

If not, every single time the puck goes over the glass the player will argue it wasn't deliberate.

That's irrelevant though because just like kicking the puck in a player is always going to say it wasn't deliberate. What they say doesn't matter though.

[VilleN]

I had this thought yesterday during the 5OT game, I wouldn't be opposed to:
-1OT 5vs5
-2OT 4vs4
-3OT 3vs3
And keep it at 3vs3 for subsequent overtimes (highly doubtful it gets further than 3OT with this format).

As for the over the glass delay of game penalty, I think they could institute the icing rules instead and if a team appears to be doing it intentionally the ref can hand out 2 min for unsportsmanlike.

Edit: Upon further review of this thread the unsportsmanlike penalty idea won't work. I say keep it the way it is, I'm not that opposed to it being a penalty. Seems like the most fair.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

First question is a clear no.

I would consider a modification to the puck over glass penalty, while already short handed. No penalty, but a face off in the D zone with no substitution seems more fair to me. Refs have some discretion call a minor if deemed intentional.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Inferno

That's irrelevant though because just like kicking the puck in a player is always going to say it wasn't deliberate. What they say doesn't matter though.

Which is exactly why you take the ref's discretion out of it. When a puck goes in off a skate you should be able to make a distinction on whether the player was kicking it or not, but even then it's a grey area. When a puck is shot out of play, every single time the player's stick is being used to shoot the puck and the puck is going towards the glass. It would be completely unfair to all parties to make the refs decide whether the player was shooting the puck at the glass or two inches above the top of the glass. Unless the player reacts like Gio did last night, which wouldn't happen if it was a discretionary call, there would be a needless argument every single time the puck went over the glass.