Log in

OT proposal

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • Friday, June 05, 2020 6:07 PM
    Reply # 9018214 on 9018081

    I don't understand why every game must have a winner. Some days neither team deserves to lose. Some days neither team deserves to win. Some days the team are just evenly matched.

    But if you want to eliminate the number of ties -- we should try a longer OT session first. 10 minutes is the standard in Canadian juniors -- at least it was. Maybe 20 is closer to sure fire.

    I think 3-on-3, like the shootout, changes the nature of the game. Though 3-on-3 is preferable to an individual skill.

  • Tuesday, June 09, 2020 8:23 AM
    Reply # 9025142 on 9018081

    I like a clear winner.  Easier on points and tie-breakers from a standings point-of-view, for me anyways.  Makes the standings easier to decipher.  And I wonder in the players' eyes, how they feel playing 60 or 65 minutes, only to be told they are just as good as the other team.  I think most players want to win.  Just my opinion. 

  • Tuesday, June 09, 2020 2:32 PM
    Reply # 9026133 on 9018081

    I am not in favor of the 3x3, or, the shoot out to decide games. Hockey is a team sport. Teams are built differently. The 3x3 turns it into an individual sport because it becomes a horse race. I think some of the teams with the top recruits have an advantage here. It also takes the 4 line management out of it for the coaches. It removes strategy, and, I think it takes away from the game. I am all for 10 minute sudden death. I am also all for a tie. because on a given day, a "lesser team" exposes weaknesses in the "elite team" by playing even (even if the goaltender makes it even). In this case, I think they deserve recognition. Equal points. A valiant effort. A tie. Why does someone have to win? I would also go back to 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie. Quit over rewarding a team for doing what they are supposed to do. No "tie breaker", what the hell is that anyway?

  • Tuesday, June 09, 2020 2:37 PM
    Reply # 9026147 on 9018081

    And, if they wanted to win so bad they should have shown up and won. The standings are easy to understand, i beat you, you beat me and I tied someone. 1-1-1. 3 points total. doesn't get easier than that. Not they won one, lost one and tied one but got the extra point. But the extra point they got was against the 37th team in the pairwise and it was raining and one of their guys had the flu and one of the grandparents was there wearing an orange shirt...

  • Tuesday, June 09, 2020 3:43 PM
    Reply # 9026287 on 9025142
    Anonymous wrote:

    And I wonder in the players' eyes, how they feel playing 60 or 65 minutes, only to be told they are just as good as the other team. 


    Well, let's see there are ties at the youth level in all sports -- including sports, like baseball, where there normally are not ties at the highest levels. There are draws in professional soccer.

    Yes, every player's desire is to win every time out. But you can't win them all. At then end of the day you will have players and coaches who are satisfied with the hard work that went in to battling for a single point, even if they came up short  on the goal of victory.

    As a player it all depends on the situation. Did you squander a lead and have to settle for a tie? Did you bust your butt to overcome a deficit to steal a point?  Is it just a game where you went blow for blow with your opponent, with no difference among the terms?


    Points... I can see arguments to a 2-0-1 (W-L-T) points -- teams played on level terms, share the points. I can see an argument for 3-0-1 points, where you make it a note that two ties should not equal one win.  In a long-run season, I'm more apt to accept 2-0-1 -- with all games worth two points. In a tournament, specifically with a round robin -- sure, value a win more to help create separation.


  • Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:28 AM
    Reply # 9027657 on 9018081

    I don’t mind ties, although I prefer a clear winner, but I also prefer not changing fundamental rules for an overtime. If whatever you are changing is a good idea then make that change standard for the entire game.  Personally I think the participation point both teams get should be done away with. You win or you lose, or neither team gets a point for that game. 

    With the rule changes to try to keep an overtime short you aren’t playing the same game.  Play a 5 on 5 sudden death regular length period  and if the game is tied  at the end then that’s what it is-a tie. I wouldn’t award either team a point and certainly not both. 

    Last modified: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:30 AM | Anonymous member
  • Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:35 PM
    Reply # 9028761 on 9018081

    I know someone who said he hates 5 minute OTs.  Its like playing a 65 minute game.  He doesn't like that.

  • Thursday, June 11, 2020 7:47 AM
    Reply # 9030551 on 9018081

    So we’re all agreed then. If  the score is tied at the end of regulation the teams each retire to their dressing rooms and pick players to face off in a battle of Fortnight that’s displayed on the arena screen. 

  • Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:35 PM
    Reply # 9031375 on 9030551
    Anonymous wrote:

    So we’re all agreed then. If  the score is tied at the end of regulation the teams each retire to their dressing rooms and pick players to face off in a battle of Fortnight that’s displayed on the arena screen. 


    I thought it was going to be 'Dance for Your Supper' with Lester St. James.
<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software