| 0 |
Subject: What's wrong with tied games?
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [6142019] Sat, Jul 23, 2005, 22:33
Is it only a North American problem? You don't see people complaining about tying in soccer, which is the most popular sport in the world. If you look at the English Premier League standings, you can occasionally see teams that have tied more than half their games. You don't see them losing popularity because "I didn't come all the way here to watch a tied game."
And what's wrong with the scoring? So we aren't getting 8-6 games anymore. When you watch soccer, chances are you'll watch a 0-0 game. And you don't see people complaining about that. You don't see them forbidding the goaltenders from using their hands to catch the ball to increasing scoring.
With the limitations they are putting on the defense, especially the goalies, they are basically crippling the defense, so that the offense can score goals through an unfair advantage. They might as well penalize defensive players for diving onto the ice and block the shots with their bodies.
In fact, I like the obstruction, because hockey is a rough game by nature. You do whatever to stop the other team from moving the puck. Clutching and grabbing is fun to watch, because defense is part of the game. And if you manage to score a goal among all the obstruction, it just makes your goal worth so much more. The way they are preventing players from playing defense only cheapens the goals.
Seriously, I'm sick and tired of the NHL changes the rules every other year. No other professional sports do that this often. |
| 1 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Sat, Jul 23, 2005, 23:34
|
I pretty much disagree with everything you said.
Other then soccer, most sports have a tiebreaker of some sort to remove ties. OT in basketball, baseball and football makes sure there is a winner. (Technically football I believe can stay tied, but I haven't seen that in years.) In golf they play extra holes until a victor is crowned. Soccer is just about the only sport where a tie is acceptable.
As far as the 'limitations' on the D, its not too much. They're going to call everything they call in my pickup league. I'm not allowed to mug a guy in the corner, or hook him until he falls, or slash his hands until his fingers are numb. I'm a defenseman and I do just fine playing by the rules. There's one team in our league who tries to emulate NHL dudes, and they hook/slash/mug whenever they can. They spend half the game in the penalty box, but its still frustrating playing those idiots. If on top of that they weren't getting penalties... it would just encourage everyone else (including my team) to be cheap, and thats no fun at all.
I doubt that even with the new rules we'll see 8-6 games. What we will see is 4-3 games where 4-5 of the 7 goals were quality, fun goals to watch. Not 7 lame "I outmugged the guy in the crease and put the puck in with my knee" goals.
Bottom line is I'm one of the biggest hockey fans around, in one of the greatest hockey cities in the world, a true student of the game... and there have been games that I wouldn't even finish watching because they were so boring. Dump, chase, hook, slash, whiste. Commercial break. Dump, chase, missed pass because guy was mugged, dump, hook, chase, slash, wierd bounce, ugly goal. Commercial break. Yawn...
No center ice line, more overtime, shootouts, faster pace, reduced quantity of sub 2.00 GAA goalies, increased amount of 50 goal scorers (should be able to improve on the ZERO of 2003)... I can't wait. :)
|
| 2 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 12:46
|
Second paragraph: Ah, but basketball, football and baseball are all North American sports, ie sports that originate from North America and where the global audience only watches the league that plays in North America alone. Soccer is global (or at least extra-North-America). And in golf, they play playoff holes because each tournament is, well, an individual tournament. Each event stands alone. Also, you don't see they play playoff holes to determine every single rank. Every rank other than the champion allows ties.
Third paragraph: Ah sure they are calling the game like a recreational league. Well here's the problem: I don't want the NHL to look like a recreational league! It's not a recreational league.
Fourth paragraph: That's what I was saying. I'm not sure we'll see "fun goals" when players score impossible goals. I think what we'll see is more goals from offensive players because the defensive players couldn't do much other than taking a penalty that wouldn't have been a penalty a couple of seasons ago. In other words, goals due to the defense is handcuffed.
Fifth paragraph: I see you aren't a soccer fan, then. At least when they dump the puck in, you'll see players chase the puck and you don't know who'd get to it first until someone does. In soccer, you see players passes the ball around in the backfield for what seems like eternity, waiting for a hole to open up in the front. At least dumping and chasing and hooking and slashing is actual action. You can't rarely hold the puck for 10 seconds without an opponent make a run at you, but it's not hard at all to keep the soccer ball for longer than 10 seconds.
My problem is why the rest of the world can stand the boredom of low-scoring, slow-action, often-tied soccer, but we in North America cannot stand the already fast-pace (even with all the obstruction) ice hockey?
So the Vancouver Canucks finished 18-18-12 in the lockout-shortened 94-95 season, and a handful ofother teams had more than 20 ties in a season over the past 25 seasons. It still beats the hell out of EPL's West Brom's 6-16-16 season. If you take a look at last season's EPL 38-game standings, you'll see 14 teams out of 20 had more than 10 ties, but people are perfectly happy with that.
Hockey is a 60-minute game with about 5 goals a game with usually more than 50 shots on goal. Soccer is 90 minutes which averages approximately 2 goals a game (from my impression, it might already be way too high an estimate) and 10-15 shots on goal. And don't forget about all the 0-0 ties, in which the fans paid tens and hundreds of dollars and don't even get to see a goal. Yet over here we're deeming 5 goals a game a crippling problem. What does this say about the people?
Why can soccer, which doesn't do any better when compared with the alleged "crippling problems" in hockey, remain a global sport? Why are Europeans happy with 0-0 ties, yet we are ashamed of 2-2 ties?
|
| 3 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 23:05
|
I'm not sure. Maybe soccer fans expect something different? However, the shootout is a European trait, as all their leagues utilize it. (Just like international play.) In fact, the North American NHL was the last major hockey league to bring shootouts into the fold.
I think you missed my point about how they call games in my fun league. The league is FUN. Fun to play in, fun to watch. The NHL of the last few years has been a dirty, sloppy, boring game.
I know you think you dislike the new rules, but give them a chance. They'll bring the game back to the fast-paced style of the 80's and early 90's. I can sit down and watch playoff games from 91-92 over and over again, yet trying to watch a game 7, triple overtime of 2002 (Phi) just isn't all that interesting. For all the 'tension', there just wasn't much going on.
Just imagine a game where you can see Mario and Crosby passing the puck around without being slashed, power forwards like Kovalchuk streaking down the wing without being hooked... and goalies being peppered with tons of shots. No more 14 shot shutouts for Brodeur, where he doesn't actually DO anything. Now we can see him make 4-5 spectacular saves in a game, not a month.
|
| 4 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 126402420
Sun, Jul 24, 2005, 23:28
|
The fact is that only the die-hard fans of any sport understand and appreciate defense. Ask a casual fan if they enjoy a 1-0 baseball game or a 7-3 football game or a 65-60 basketball game. The answer, for the casual fan, in all instances is likely to be a resounding no. Face it, the casual fan wants to see a 7-5 baseball game, a 35-21 football game, and a 100-90 basketball game. Offense is ALWAYS more exciting to the casual fan than defense. It holds true in soccer as well. The fans you're pointing to are the die-hard fans. I would be willing to be that casual soccer fans don't care much for 0-0 ties.
Personally, I think the NHL could deal with a bit more offense. I'm tired of seeing a guy like Peter Forsberg take the puck into the zone and then get hooked and groped and shoved and everything else to the point that he has no opportunity to even attempt a shot, much less score. To me, that's too much bias towards the defense. I think the new rules are simply returning a balance to the game. They're forcing defenses to actually have a plan that involves something other than: "Mug the crap out of the opponent." And I have no problem with that.
I'm also glad to see the removal of the red line. I've always that that it was stupid to penalize a huge breakaway. If it just so happens that a team has that big of a breakaway, then let them have it. Don't penalize them and essentially give a break to the defense for their lapse.
Lastly, I have no problem with shootouts to determine a winner. Ties are boring and lame for both sides. Nobody wins. How do you celebrate? Do you say, "Woohoo! We're, um, equal." A tie is only a good thing for the lesser team. For instance, if CAR were to face NJD in Jersey and tie, then CAR feels like they won something. But why? They didn't actually win. Why not force them to actually win? The very idea of competition is to determine a winner.
I'm a fan of soccer and know the strategies and fully understand the game. Still, I can't stand to watch it. I love the game in theory, but dislike it in action (particularly with all the dives that make it look more like theatre than a sport).
In the end, most of the rule changes were made to bring fringe fans back to the game. Hockey will not suffer as much from their work stoppage as baseball did from theirs. The reason is that hockey's fans are more die-hard than baseball. However, it will take much longer for hockey to get their fringe fans back than it did for baseball and one way to do that (like baseball) is to increase offense.
Seriously, I'm sick and tired of the NHL changes the rules every other year. No other professional sports do that this often.
Actually, they do. Baseball is always tinkering with the definition of the strike zone and various other aspects of the game. Sure, the essential rules are the same (number of strikes for an out, etc.), but they still tweak. Even football has rule tweaks just about every year. I consider most of these changes for hockey to be tweaks. The only real big change that will be noticeable to casual fans is the lack of ties. Other than that, casual fans won't notice and that's really the determination of a major rule change (as in baseball switching to 4 strikes for a strikeout; EVERYBODY would notice that)
|
| 5 | Toral
ID: 53422511
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 17:30
|
TLW and other posters:
I am a purist. A 5-minute overtime after 3 periods is as far as I am willing to go. Shootouts are an abomination. An abomination unto the Lord.
However I am 100% in favour of the anti-obstruction campaign. Obstruction in the sense meant should not be allowed. The "good old days" weren't always so good, but they were better in this way.
There is no reason hooking should be allowed at all. It didn't use to be. I'm a bit older than R9 and I remember a time when one real hook was enuf to draw a penalty. Then defenders adopted the tactic of one quick hook, originally designed as a supposed puck check from behind. Refs didn't call it. Not a real "hook". Then over time the "defenders" went at it more and more until you could expect to be obstructed by a stick thrust into your belly, at your thighs, to be almost pulled down, as a standard defence technique, and no penalty was called unless you were actually and demonstratively pulled down.
There's no reason to allow slashing at all. Slashes that are now ignored would at one time have been called for 5 plus game, and match misconducts. Better equipment probably caused this.
My concern is that the NHL has announced its going to stop these obstruction fouls how many times? At least 5, maybe 10, or 12. It's never worked before. If all the penalties are called that should be called, it will be 4-on-4 for about 50 minutes out of 60.
So the players need to be re-educated. You can't call 30 penalties a game because the fans won't stand for it, and if the penalty boxes are always full it encourages the kind of brutal mugging game the Flyers played in the 70s, when refs wouldn't call all the penalties that could be called against them because if they did, the Flyers would be 2 men short the whole game.
Toral
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 17:41
|
Great points Toral. I agree with all of it.
Let me just say, in reference to the 0-0 ties (having played college soccer as a center forward, and it you knew me you'd realize how badly our offense had to be to have me as the point) that a 0-0 tie is great because they didn't score on you. Holding a team to no points on the field is an accomplishment both teams can take away.
|
| 7 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 18:32
|
My concern is that the NHL has announced its going to stop these obstruction fouls how many times? At least 5, maybe 10, or 12. It's never worked before. If all the penalties are called that should be called, it will be 4-on-4 for about 50 minutes out of 60.
I couldn't agree more, and I'm definitely skeptical... but I think everyone from Bettman to the players knows how bad it got and that a real effort is needed now. Lip service only gets you so far and no more obstruction is one of the few things most people can agree would be a great thing. They really can't afford to drop the ball on this anymore.
|
| 8 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 30692423
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 18:45
|
So the players need to be re-educated. You can't call 30 penalties a game because the fans won't stand for it, and if the penalty boxes are always full it encourages the kind of brutal mugging game the Flyers played in the 70s, when refs wouldn't call all the penalties that could be called against them because if they did, the Flyers would be 2 men short the whole game.
That's what the preseason is for. You can bet that, if the NHL is for real about this, there will be a LOT of PIM's racked up in the preseason.
Let me just say, in reference to the 0-0 ties (having played college soccer as a center forward, and it you knew me you'd realize how badly our offense had to be to have me as the point) that a 0-0 tie is great because they didn't score on you. Holding a team to no points on the field is an accomplishment both teams can take away.
PD, you're a die-hard. I assure you that casual fans hate that. As a casual fan to basketball, I can't stand a score below 60. It's beyond boring to me. I'm a casual fan of soccer (at least watching it) and I can't stand a scoreless game. Sure, it's cool that it was a double shutout, but who cares? As a casual fan, I watch to see the team I "root" for win. In that sense, a tie is just as bad as a loss.
I'm forced to remember Auburn's winning streak back in 1993-94. The team went into the Georgia game in 1994 not having lost a game since 1992. Georgia came into Auburn and tied them and we, the fans, left like we had been absolutely defeated. The Georgia fans, on the other hand, looked like they had just beat Auburn 50-0. A fair amount of that had to do with a tie being just as bad as a loss according to the pollsters at the time, but it also had to do with the idea of the Auburn fans thinking the team was better than Georgia. It was seen as an "upset" even though nobody won.
My question has always been what would have happened had the current college football OT rules been in place? Could Auburn have won? Could they have remained undefeated? Could Georgia have "legitimately" beat Auburn? Who knows? I will forever remember that game as a commentary on tie games. There should never be a "winner" and "loser" in a tie game and yet there is.
|
| 9 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 19:47
|
KKB 4: See, the problem is that they aren't "tweaking". They are getting rid of some stuff and introducing something else.
In a hypothetical scenario/analogy, this will be like, say, 20 years from now, a usual baseball game's score will be something like 4-1, and they are losing fans and nobody hits 40 homeruns or reach 100 RBIs in a season anymore. Then the MLB and MLBPA propose that they get rid of strikes altogether so that batters won't be struck out, which means they can wait longer for the perfect pitch to hit, and that translates to more scoring. And then in order to keep players fresh so that they can perform better the next day, all extra-inning games end with a 3-batter blast-off if the game is still tied after 10 innings. I mean, look at all the people at the (omit stupid sponsor) Homerun Derby during the all-star weekend. Also, catchers will not be allowed to field in case of a wild pitch, the pitcher will have to be the one who retrieves his own bad throw.
I don't know. I might be babbling here, but perhaps you can see how radical the NHL is being. It's not tweaking. It's mutating.
If you want 80s-style hockey, well then, I'd appreciate more if they allow the players' self-policing, like Marty McSorley was to Wayne Gretzky. Let the players deal with themselves (and that brings me back to my Steve-Moore-is-an-ass arguments).
What made the high scoring games back then was that the defense was afraid to make a run at the scorers. They would have to suffer "consequences" if something happened to the other team's big stars. There's no intimidation now in hockey, and you can send all the players to the penalty box, but that won't solve the intrinsic problem. What the players need to see is an aura around the scorers, not the referee's face.
|
| 10 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 296372518
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 21:33
|
TLW, whoa there buddy! Let's reel you back in a bit. ;)
Then the MLB and MLBPA propose that they get rid of strikes altogether so that batters won't be struck out, which means they can wait longer for the perfect pitch to hit, and that translates to more scoring.
No, that would be the equivalent if they took all the pads and gloves and blockers away from the goaltenders AND took the sticks and visors away from the "defenders" AND widened the net by about 6 feet. Oh, AND allowed forwards to put a 3 inch curve on their stick.
Sorry, but the current rule changes are not THAT dramatic. Your proposed baseball rule would change scores from 4-1 to something like 25-20. That's not what's happening in hockey, I assure you. It's going to move scores from 3-2 (THE absolute most popular final score, as known from my years of doing Pick'ems research) to something like 5-4, if even that much.
To compare it to baseball, it would be the equivalent of lowering the mound an inch or two and shrinking the strike zone an inch or two.
You make it sound as if the lack of obstruction is suddenly going to send hockey scores into the stratosphere, but there is at least one thing that will prevent that: referee judgement. Just like changes in the strike zone in baseball have netted little change, I think the changes in calling obstruction in hockey will net a little change. Granted, it will likely be a bit more, but IMHO, it needs to be because I sometimes feel like I'm watching a Grab-a-thon instead of a hockey game.
Bill James, in his Historical Baseball Abstract, lays out some "tweaks" to baseball that he feels are necessary. His reasoning is that the originators of the game never could have anticipated, nor wanted, a game as it is today. Much like the originators of basketball didn't want a team to hold on to the ball for minutes at a time (thus, the shot clock) he reasoned that, among other things, the originators of baseball didn't want a pitcher to throw to 1st base 20 times in an AB to keep the runner from stealing second. His research showed that each successive throw to first CLEARLY gave more of an advantage to the pitcher in preventing a SB. In other words, it's in the best interest of the pitcher to throw to first as many times as he can. But, is that what we REALLY want to see in baseball? Not me. You know how the fans boo after about the 2nd or 3rd throw? Even the fans of the team throwing to first? Well, James proposed that a rule be put in place that after a certain number of throws, a ball was called for the hitter. Pretty simple change in the rules that would still allow a reasonable number of throws and, if the pitcher deemed it necessary, allow the pitcher to sacrifice a ball if they wanted to throw over to first more times. BUT, the rule would at least prevent pitchers from just doing it out of habit and for no particular reason.
This is how I view the changes put in place by the NHL. They are a necessary change to keep the game in line with how it was intended to be played.
Also, catchers will not be allowed to field in case of a wild pitch, the pitcher will have to be the one who retrieves his own bad throw.
Again, bad analogy. In baseball, there is no rule that if the runner runs into the catcher, then the runner is automatically out and can't play the next inning. That's pretty much what hockey had in that goalies were "off limits." They could not be treated like regular players by the opposing team, even though they were allowed to skate outside of their area and play the puck like a normal player. Well, the NHL has basically said that goalies can't have it both ways. If they want the protection they've enjoyed (which I think EVERY goalie is happy to have), then they have to stay within a reasonably sized protected area. It's like football telling a QB that they have to be in a certain zone in order to throw the ball away (a rule tweak that was necessary to prevent QB's from throwing the ball away at the last second and preventing the opposition from ever getting a deserved sack).
As for OT, we can argue until we're blue in the face about it. That's something that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on (BTW, your analogy is again far from correct. You see, you're pointing to a game that has a method to prevent ties and comparing it to a game that has no method to prevent ties. Now, if the NHL said the teams should play OT until a winner is scored, that too would be fine by me and would be perfectly in line with baseball, a system that you seem to be okay with. After all, to match up with how hockey used to be, baseball would play a single extra inning and then declare the game a tie. 1 inning. That's it. Good luck, boys.). But, the rest of the rule changes, IMHO, are simply trying to get the game back to a place where it was always intended to be. The game has swung WAY too far towards the "defense" and it's pitiful to watch.
If you want 80s-style hockey, well then, I'd appreciate more if they allow the players' self-policing, like Marty McSorley was to Wayne Gretzky. Let the players deal with themselves
They do an excellent job of that right now, don't they? Unfortunately, they don't and it's a time like this, when the players are no longer policing themselves, that rule changes need to be made to return the game to what it should be: entertaining to watch.
As I said previously, I don't think we'll see defense thrown out the window. We won't see 10-8 scores as a norm. Defenses WILL adapt. But, and this is the key for me, defenses will now actually have to have a plan. Right now, hockey is the equivalent of 11 football players lining up at the line and tackling every player on offense at the line of scrimmage once the ball is put in play, whether they have the ball or not. It seems to have become equal parts luck and skill needed to score a goal and that's just not fair to the offense. Just like wide receivers in football are given a cushion to allow them to get going, offenses in hockey will now be given a cushion with which they can actually set up an offense and not be forced to simply dump, chase, and pray they can get the puck to someone who is not been shoved to the ice in front of the net.
|
| 11 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Mon, Jul 25, 2005, 23:28
|
That's pretty much what hockey had in that goalies were "off limits." They could not be treated like regular players by the opposing team, even though they were allowed to skate outside of their area and play the puck like a normal player. Well, the NHL has basically said that goalies can't have it both ways. If they want the protection they've enjoyed (which I think EVERY goalie is happy to have), then they have to stay within a reasonably sized protected area.
The simplest solution is to make it fair play if the goalies leave the crease. For example, goalies can be checked just like skaters do if they are handling the puck behind the net. I'm not exactly sure what the official rules are on this, because I don't see consistent calls on skaters running goalies outside the crease.
They do an excellent job of that right now, don't they? Unfortunately, they don't and it's a time like this, when the players are no longer policing themselves,
I don't think they don't want to police themselves. It's the rules that are changed over the last decade or so that prevented/discouraged players from handling their own business. You see how many penalties were called when a player retaliates? They can't police anything now, because retaliation is how you carry out the "sentence".
Anyhow, my biggest problem with the rule changes is the limitation of goalie movement. Do you remember how exciting it was when the whole team was trying to set up Martin Brodeur (I think that's who it was) for a goal? If they want to discourage that, just make it more risky for the goalies to do so. Afterall, if a team dumps the puck in, why should they be given a better chance to retrieve the puck?
|
| 12 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 10:08
|
The simplest solution is to make it fair play if the goalies leave the crease.
That will never happen. Besides, doesn't this accomplish the same goal? A majority of the time we see a goalie go outside the new "zone" to pass the puck, there's a defender on their way to stop the pass. However, that defender can never touch the goalie, so they end up skating by him or otherwise avoiding him and trying to stop the pass (which rarely actually happens).
The only difference between your proposed version and the old version is that you're allowing the goalie to get creamed. Okay, in that case goalies will just stop going out to make that pass. So really, what's the difference between your proposal and the new version? Nothing, except that with the new version there's still no chance that a goalie will get creamed, which given the scarcity of real talent at that position, I prefer.
I don't think they don't want to police themselves. It's the rules that are changed over the last decade or so that prevented/discouraged players from handling their own business.
I guess we just disagree. I, personally, think the NHL is fine with not turning into a boxing match (which is what "policing" really is). If I want to see boxing, I'll turn on ESPN Friday Night Fights. I understand the occassional scrap, but I don't want to see every other play turn into fisticuffs.
Do you remember how exciting it was when the whole team was trying to set up Martin Brodeur (I think that's who it was) for a goal?
Sure, it was exciting. It was also once-in-a-lifetime. How many times has it happened since? Enough to warrant keeping the status quo? Not IMHO. It's a freak occurrence and something that, in the end, didn't really matter to the game. It's the equivalent of William Perry's TD.
Afterall, if a team dumps the puck in, why should they be given a better chance to retrieve the puck?
Typically, when a team "dumps the puck in," there's no offensive player available to retrieve the puck. At least not without a defender close by. And if the team DOES get an offensive opportunity out of that, then shame on the defense for being out of position.
Again, the new rules are going to put an emphasis on having a REAL defense, and an actual defensive plan. Clutching and grabbing and shoving and hooking and tripping are no longer going to win you games. I think, in the end, we'll see a better brand of hockey; one that requires real strategies on defense and allows us to see offenses have the ability to set up a play. Hockey might actually become more about brains and less about brawn. One can hope, eh?
|
| 13 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 11:24
|
As for eliminating ties...I think the NHL should just make the OT 20 minutes of sudden death 4 on 4.
If they're still tied after that THEN maybe a shootout. I just dont think a shootout says anything about which team is better. And with 20 minutes of 4 on 4, it'll almost never come to that anyways.
|
| 14 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 16:42
|
The only difference between your proposed version and the old version is that you're allowing the goalie to get creamed. Okay, in that case goalies will just stop going out to make that pass. So really, what's the difference between your proposal and the new version? Nothing, except that with the new version there's still no chance that a goalie will get creamed, which given the scarcity of real talent at that position, I prefer.
No. Right now, a goalie will get a penalty if they leave the crease. In my suggestion, the goalie can leave the crease if he is willing to take the risk of getting creamed. A lot of the times there's nobody close to him when a puck gets dumped in anyways. Now, he'll just have to watch the puck circle the boards to the other side.
I, personally, think the NHL is fine with not turning into a boxing match (which is what "policing" really is).
They aren't boxing matches, where two people just beat each other up for no apparent reason other than a title belt. Most hockey fights have (short) storylines, be it someone creamed an opposing star player, or just two enforcers trash-talking each other throughout the game. It's like watching WWE on skates. It's great.
Anyways, I don't think I'm making my points in the last couple of posts. I'm just rambling on and on -- off the topic too.
My point is: tied games should be accepted. Forcing a winner with 3 penalty shots is more like flipping a coin to determine a winner. It's not an accurate measurement of both team's skills.
|
| 15 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 12:11
|
As for eliminating ties...I think the NHL should just make the OT 20 minutes of sudden death 4 on 4.
I wouldn't mind that either.
In my suggestion, the goalie can leave the crease if he is willing to take the risk of getting creamed. A lot of the times there's nobody close to him when a puck gets dumped in anyways.
I suppose we just disagree. I see no reason to lift protection of the goalie and, with that in mind, I don't want them to be a part of the offense.
It's like watching WWE on skates. It's great.
Seeing as how I don't watch WWE, I think this might be the basis of why we disagree on this point as well.
My point is: tied games should be accepted. Forcing a winner with 3 penalty shots is more like flipping a coin to determine a winner. It's not an accurate measurement of both team's skills.
You don't have to accept tie games just because you think a shootout is an unfair measurement of team skill. J's suggestion works around that quite easily.
|
| 16 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 07:14
|
20 minutes of 4-on-4? They'll have to zamboni the ice again for another 15-minute break. I'm sure that'll pose quite some problems both in the locker rooms, in the audiance, as well as the groundskeeping staff.
I do agree that continuous overtime is the best way to determine which team is better on a given night. During the playoffs, each second that passes by simply builds more excitement. At the end of double OT, the stake is just way too high to lose the game.
This is theoretically a solution, but I just don't think it's practical.
|
| 17 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 08:54
|
they do it in the playoffs, why not in the regular season? And in the regular season play 4 on 4 - meaning a higher likelihood of a goal being scored. You'd only have one overtime period, then a shootout, just for the hell of it it. So that we dont have 3 OT games in the regular season, save those beauties for the playoffs (where OT would be the normal 5 on 5)
|
| 18 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Thu, Jul 28, 2005, 09:33
|
I agree with J. With 4-on-4, you're much more likely to see an end to the game in a 20-minute OT. I doubt there would be any major problems with having the zamboni, etc. with everyone knowing the game is going into a 20-minute sudden death OT. I know I'd be willing to stick around to watch it!
The only problem wiht continuous OT's is that you'll eventually get a 5OT game like the playoffs and people just won't stick around to watch that in the regular season.
Honestly, I wouldn't even mind much if they just did a 20-minute 4-on-4 OT and THEN called it a tie. At least then the teams have had a realistic chance of scoring (unlike 5-minute OT's).
|
| 19 | Philly Phyve
ID: 6758172
Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 04:26
|
Sigh. I'm not sure about all the new rules, but certainly enforcement of the old ones would be an improvement. One of the arguments on here states that hockey is a rough game, and therefore clutching and grabbing, beating players with your stick, and creating a mosh pit of inaction along the boards is ok. Simply put: No, it's not. It's against the rules, or it's supposed to be anyway. Why can't you play defense without clutching and grabbing? Ever hear of positioning? That actually takes skill, which is much more entertaining to watch than some neandrathal, who has no right to be playing in the league, mauling a much more talented player. And they wonder why the NHL can't get a decent TV contract. If you mug a basketball player driving down the lane, they call a foul. If a receiver in football is hit before the ball is thrown, then out comes a penalty flag. Why should hockey be any different? They should be allowed to stop an offensive rush be any means possible? Hogwash! Why not just bring a bazooka to the rink and fire some shots at an oncoming 2-on-1 break? I'm not an advocate of most of the rule changes, although regulating goalie equipment is far overdue, along with making the defense stay on the ice when they ice the puck during the powerplay, but to say that they shouldn't enforce the rules that were already there is ludicrous. Clutching and grabbing is NOT part of the game, and it was never intended to be. I've watched hockey for many years, and though the players have gotten better, the game has been dumbed down. There's nothing wrong with the neutral zone trap, as most like to suggest. The trap is not the problem; the problem is that the offense is not allowed to beat the trap. Why? because of that great skill they call clutching and grabbing. If the rules were enforced, you would see highly skilled players attacking the trap to get easy scores, much like the do in basketball. They would attack the trap much like the football team who throws deep when the other team brings a blitz. If the rules were enforced, the trap technique would actaully INCREASE tempo, and cause MORE odd man rushes. Sadly, as was stated by someone on here in an earlier post, clutching and grabbing will most likely to continue to be condoned, and the rules, new or old, will continue to be broken. And the sport will not grow, because most people watching on the tube will change the channel to something like professional wrestling, where you can wintess all the clutching and grabbing you could ever hope for.
|
| 20 | Brian
ID: 49771616
Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 08:49
|
Soccer is the gayest sport ever. Its only the most popular in the world because cheap countries can afford it. Just a ball.... Dont ever compare hockey to soccer. It just makes me sad.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|