[PGT] Nucks 4 Flames 3 SO LOSS

[chummer]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I get it. But baseball and basketball live with it.

You're right, some OT's would extend beyond 20 minutes. Each team would maybe have 1 game like that a year? And like I said, a subtle rule change like over and back might reduce the ragging of the puck we sometimes see.

Well you're preaching to the choir because I totally agree with everything you say.

They were having this discussion on NHL radio a few weeks ago.
They mentioned time and also the players getting tired.

Not sure what the answer is but I don't see the shootout going anywhere.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by chummer

Well you're preaching to the choir because I totally agree with everything you say.

They were having this discussion on NHL radio a few weeks ago.
They mentioned time and also the players getting tired.

Not sure what the answer is but I don't see the shootout going anywhere.

I don't totally understand why the shootout has become so lame. I used to think PK's in soccer were the worst, but it is way more interesting than the shootout IMO.

Maybe soccer allows a little time to build drama. There is no drama in the shootout. You don't feel any pressure. And the shooters don't seem that into it a lot of the time.

[442scotty]

Hard to really blame Rittich for any of the goals when the scorers had all day to walk in as close as they needed , time to smoke a cigarette, then let her rip with no fear of someone checking you. That’s what ticks me off about the flames defending at times. The stretch in the second period where the flames totally checked Vancouver to death is what they will need a lot more of if they plan on doing any damage in the playoffs and the rest of the regular season for that matter

[Barnet Flame]

The shootout is lame because more often than not, shooters go for the ‘safe’ option.

By safe, I mean keeping themselves safe from criticism.

Do something flash or unpredictable and miss, you get slaughtered.

But you’d probably be just as likely to score as make an arse of yourself.

And they’d be more entertaining than the procession of predictably NHL shootouts have become.

[Shazam]

I remember when people liked the shootout.

Ties are never coming back. Loser points exist because teams would play for the tie.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Just extend three on three until you have a winner
More often than not it would still be less time than the shootout and the longer ones would just be that much more exciting

There's definitely some ideal OT period length that would eliminate 95% of shootouts.

I bet if they went to just 7 or 8 minutes of OT, it would do the trick.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I remember when people liked the shootout.

Ties are never coming back. Loser points exist because teams would play for the tie.

Not sure what this means. What difference does it make to OT that clubs would play for the tie if there was no S|O vs the way it is now?

I mean there is a whole other point there if you win in OT but the other club already gets one as well. I dont see how getting rid of the SO changes that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by AC

There's definitely some ideal OT period length that would eliminate 95% of shootouts.

I bet if they went to just 7 or 8 minutes of OT, it would do the trick.

Is there a website that tracks how many games are decided in OT vs SO?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I get it. But baseball and basketball live with it.



You're right, some OT's would extend beyond 20 minutes. Each team would maybe have 1 game like that a year? And like I said, a subtle rule change like over and back might reduce the ragging of the puck we sometimes see.

Do you think so? I would be stunned if a single game each year went 20 full minutes without a goal in 3v3 OT, to say nothing for one each team. As it is now most games in extra time end within five mins. I would bet it would be rare for any games to extend past ten. Fifteen mins would be approaching uncharted territory. Twenty mins? I bet it wouldn’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skudr248]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Was at Rogers arena. Canucks fan tried to fight me in the 300’s by grabbing my jersey by the neck. Fellow CP poster slapped him in the face and he never bothered us again.

I hate that team.

hey!

[djsFlames]

If you brought back the tie, but only after 10 minutes of OT, they would at least not be frequent.

Probably 1 or 2 of every 10 OTs would run out without a decision.

And if the games really started to matter, teams would push in OT for the extra point if they really needed it. Then you'd have exciting OTs in march and april with teams on the outside needing to score for that extra point. I'd tune in for that.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not sure what this means. What difference does it make to OT that clubs would play for the tie if there was no S|O vs the way it is now?

I mean there is a whole other point there if you win in OT but the other club already gets one as well. I dont see how getting rid of the SO changes that.

Whatever the shootout gets replaced with, the alternative cannot go back to teams playing for the one point.

Right now, two points to one team are guaranteed. It has to remain that way. So ties aren't happening again.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Do you think so? I would be stunned if a single game each year went 20 full minutes without a goal in 3v3 OT, to say nothing for one each team. As it is now most games in extra time end within five mins. I would bet it would be rare for any games to extend past ten. Fifteen mins would be approaching uncharted territory. Twenty mins? I bet it wouldn’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't been to a shootout game in years but you were there last night.

Did the fans not seem to enjoy it? I think the NHL would argue the fans love the shootout.

[AC]

Originally Posted by chummer

I haven't been to a shootout game in years but you were there last night.

Did the fans not seem to enjoy it? I think the NHL would argue the fans love the shootout.

Personally, I will tune into any game that is going into OT because I love it.

If OT ends and the game is going to a shootout, I literally always stop watching unless the Flames are involved. I have no interest in the shootout at all.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by AC

Personally, I will tune into any game that is going into OT because I love it.

If OT ends and the game is going to a shootout, I literally always stop watching unless the Flames are involved. I have no interest in the shootout at all.

Totally agree.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by chummer

I haven't been to a shootout game in years but you were there last night.



Did the fans not seem to enjoy it? I think the NHL would argue the fans love the shootout.

It’s hard to say. The fans love winning, so was the crowd’s engagement during the shootout a reflection of that, or was it a product of the exercise on ice?

I had never seen a shootout before, and I found it quite boring. Like I said, it was my wife’s first hockey game, and I think her reaction is telling:

She is not a hockey fan. She tolerates when I watch because she is just that amazing. She had fun last night, but when 3v3 started, she lit up. She said to me after the first minute: “Why don’t they play the whole game like this?” After the shootout, she called it anticlimactic, and again said it would be much better if they just continued to play 3v3.

So, I don’t know. The fans in attendance last night seemed to enjoy the shootout, but I don’t think anymore so than they enjoyed overtime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Whatever the shootout gets replaced with, the alternative cannot go back to teams playing for the one point.

Right now, two points to one team are guaranteed. It has to remain that way. So ties aren't happening again.

This is the part i dont get.

Why?

we have most games now that award only 2 points...whats the problem if some more go that way?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Do you think so? I would be stunned if a single game each year went 20 full minutes without a goal in 3v3 OT, to say nothing for one each team. As it is now most games in extra time end within five mins. I would bet it would be rare for any games to extend past ten. Fifteen mins would be approaching uncharted territory. Twenty mins? I bet it wouldn’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whole approach could change if there was no definitive stopping point but I do kind of think a few games could go long. And I suppose the quality of play could deteriorate due to fatigue with fewer scoring chances resulting, so that's why I'd consider ways to reduce the time wasting parts.

I get the fatigue factor but one thing about 4 vs 3, it's not physical at all.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

If you brought back the tie, but only after 10 minutes of OT, they would at least not be frequent.

Probably 1 or 2 of every 10 OTs would run out without a decision.

And if the games really started to matter, teams would push in OT for the extra point if they really needed it. Then you'd have exciting OTs in march and april with teams on the outside needing to score for that extra point. I'd tune in for that.

The TV companies wont go for it, they need a reasonably predictable end to a game within the length of a couple of commercial breaks

[browna]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The TV companies wont go for it, they need a reasonably predictable end to a game within the length of a couple of commercial breaks

Yeah part of the reason for shootout vs extended OT was meant to have a conclusion without more time for TV to go over the limit which they are comfortable with.

Plus I am sure the PA would have issue (if only trivial, but anything to be the opposite voice of the league) of player health with an extra 5 minute (and certainly more)OT 3 on 3. It was likely discussed when the rules changed.

There is no easy answer outside of bringing back ties.