| 0 |
Subject: 0 goals against, but only a silver medal
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [6142019] Sat, Apr 09, 2005, 23:23
That's why I hate the shootout. It may be exciting to some people, but it totally does not make sense.
This applies to soccer too, and its penalty kick is even more unfair. They score like 90% of the time, and they often decides the games. All for someone falling down in the box who has no chance to score a goal whatsoever? But I digress.
Hockey, as well as soccer, is a team sport. To decide a game solely on individual player's skills has nothing to do with "team". There's no team strategy (as in who goes where and who to pass the puck to and who shoots) involved. Also, it does not test the players' will to win. It's not like you can score at will on a penalty shot just because you want to.
The penalty shots throw away everything that hockey (and team sports as a whole) stands for, except for that one thing.
If a winner must be declared, then continuous overtime is the way to go. It is a test on the stamina of each and every player, and it's also psychologically straining. If your will to win is not strong enough, fatigue will catch up on you. That is what the game is all about. It's not about deciding the game by taking the easy way out because the players may get too tired.
It's really ridiculous how a team (like Team Canada) that has not given up a single goal in the whole tournament has to settle for the silver medal just because their individual shooting skills were worse than the other team for that one day. |
| 1 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Sun, Apr 10, 2005, 05:15
|
I agree, in international competition and playoff NHL games, I like the continuous OT format. Some of the best playoff games are the ones that went into triple OT. (Especially the game 7 ones!)
That said, I'd be in favor of shootouts for regular season NHL games. Continuous OT is not really an option considering an 82 game schedule, and its not like the current OT solves anything. Shootouts can be held after the OT just for the purists. Adding 10 minutes of shootouts to decide a game is hardly a draining experience for the players so I don't see them disagreeing with it.
|
| 2 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Sun, Apr 10, 2005, 15:44
|
But seriously, what's wrong with ties? I don't see soccer fans have a problem with ties, and they have a hell of a lot more 0-0 ties. And I don't see them whining about not enough scoring.
So two teams are about the same strength on a given day. Why do you have to force a winner, which depends on the physical status of their top 5 players and their goalies only?
|
| 3 | Dec
ID: 318412312
Tue, Apr 12, 2005, 15:17
|
Every major sports (Football,Baseball,BasketBall) in the US don't accept ties, Hockey does and the ratings are the lowest. Maybe it could be a reason to change the rules.
I don't see a big difference between shootout and the fluke goal at the end of the 3rd OT. Well I'm going to bed early.
|
| 4 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Apr 12, 2005, 16:07
|
Football has one 15minute OT and then you'd have a tie. It just doesn't happen too often.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|