I'm having a hard time figuring out how you get a player's helmet off outside of a hard check (and he doesn't have it done up tight) that isn't against the rules.
If the shootout is to stay, I want it to be 5 attempts for each team like soccer, then sudden death.
Currently with just 3 attempts, you are probably going to lose 80% of the time if you miss the first shot and the other team scores. With a best of 5, there are more scenarios and greater chance of a comeback, more drama.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how you get a player's helmet off outside of a hard check (and he doesn't have it done up tight) that isn't against the rules.
Is there currently any rule that prevents a player from unsnapping another players chin strap? Because if not, I could see a scenario where a player (Marchand maybe? lol) tries taking another players helmet off to get them off the ice during a critical moment.
Wouldn't grabbing someone's helmet technically be holding?
How on Earth does people sticking around to see if their team wins equate to people liking shootouts? If the game was decided by monkeys flinging feces at each other the fans will still stick around to see who wins.
The NHL is in the entertainment business. If people are entertained then they will watch. That is what counts. Maybe I should have worded it differently and used the word entertained rather than liked. I don't 'like' a shootout determining a game but I will almost always watch it because it is entertaining. And in the entertainment business being entertained = liking.
I'd rather the 3v3 be extended to 10 minutes to be honest, I don't think the NHLPA has an appetite for that however.
Cages? There will be another lockout if you try to get pro hockey players to wear a cage
Hamonic wouldn’t even wear one with a broken face
And thats not even taking into consideration the uproar from the Dental lobby! There would be Dentists rioting in the streets if they made Full Cages mandatory!
Anyone who would even suggest such a heinous thing is clearly a Heathen and an unabashed Anti-Dentite!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Was hoping they would discuss getting rid of the stupid shootout. Nobody likes it.
Ultimately the shootout serves its purpose as per the standings and tie-breakers, but I'm sure a lot of people would like to get rid of it.
From what I understand a large part of the incentive to bring OT to 3 on 3 was to get more games decided that route because its slightly more in the spirit of the game, but more importantly, games going the distance to the shootout really causes havoc with travel schedules at times.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Is this actually a thing? Players throwing cheapshots because OT is winding down and they know it won't matter?
A) I've never seen it myself
B) It's all skilled players on the ice on OT and only 6 of them
C) OT is so intense and plays develop so quickly that the dying seconds usually matter
I don't think it's a thing either, or at least I haven't seen it. But, I do like the idea still. There have been a couple times I've seen OT end with someone still in the box, and thought it a good idea if they're not eligible for the shootout.
Literally no one would stop watching hockey if we did W-L-T 3-0-1 point system and no OT or shootouts at all.
Teams would absolutely pour it on in the dying minutes of the 3rd to go for all three points instead of a measly one point, and even if it ends in a tie, that would be more entertaining than keepaway and a skills comp.
1. No I like hockey and I never get why people complain that there’s too much hockey. Watch 10-12 less games if it’s too much.
On average, I probably already do. By this time of the year I am completely burnt out on regular season hockey. Playoffs always come a month after fatigue has set in and I get pumped all over again. Would be great to eliminate the apathy altogether.
Less wear and tear on the players = higher quality hockey. Fewer injuries, less travel, and so on and so forth.
Quote:
2. They’d never go for that. That’s way too much money to lose.
Absolutely, and it's more likely they increase games as they expand. It will always just be a personal pipe dream.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
A hockey player should not have to leave the ice if his helmet comes off.
And hockey rinks didn't need to have netting behind the goals until a girl died from getting hit with a puck. How about we be proactive for a change this time instead of waiting for someone to die?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
They need to make a rule or address players like Sean Monahan who angle their visors so high it's essentially offering zero protection. It was pointed out to me recently and every time I see him on the ice I cringe. I'd imagine there is a rule in place (proper use of equipment) and this just need to be enforced.
That's already a rule. They were enforcing it last year. Monahan and Komarov were the lead examples why the made it. Monahan was warned in last years preseason.
Last year Komarov was warned in a game then given a penalty even.