Overtime

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from JYaso. Show JYaso's posts

    Overtime

    Just wanted to start a discussion on OT.  Although I like the NHL Rule of going 4 on 4 in OT, I do not think 5 minutes is enough before the Shootout.  My suggestion is to make it 10 minutes so more games are decided in OT and less in a shootout.  Your Thoughts? 

    The other rule I think they should change is if a Goalie gets a penalty-- he should go to the Box with someone to serve the Penalty and the Backup Goalie has to come in cold for the 2 minutes.  After a stoppage in play after the penalty time is up then the starting goalie can come back in.  The player serving the penalty for the goalie comes out at 2 minutes until a stoppage of play.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dkrejci46. Show dkrejci46's posts

    Re: Overtime

    the OT, okay, the goalie penalty thing i really don't like, a goalie getting a penalty shouldn't give you more of an advantage than a regular skater getting a penalty
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Overtime

    #1 like that one allot! #2 Gary Bettman is on weekly (forget which day) on NHL Home Ice Sirius Radio Channel 204 Good luck with that one. Give'em hell dude.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jamminjim. Show jamminjim's posts

    Re: Overtime

    i think if you go 10 min. go regular 5 0n 5.please will some one talk trades on these posts,ryder,sturm,wideman,something anything has to be done,we need a goal scorer bad,and chara has to relize his role.yes i think his shoulder still is not right.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Cooper-5. Show Cooper-5's posts

    Re: Overtime

    I like the idea of the lengthened four on four; however, I would recommend ending the shootout entirely and go back to just having "tie games" when OT is over. A lengthened OT at four on four would end many more games; moreover, as unsatisfying as a tie can be, I find the shootout to be a charade. I'm glad when the Bruins win them, but more out of relief than anything else. I don't enjoy them, and here's why: first, it seems ridiculous that a two teams struggle for 65 minutes for one point, yet one of them can add a second by merely winning a one-on-one confrontation between a goalie and a shooter in less than 10 minutes. Second, shootouts are not hockey: they take away too many elements of the game: defense, checking, passing, to name a few. Imagine setting up a pitching machine at the end of nine innings, and staging a homerun derby to end a baseball game: it would be a travesty of the sport. The shootout is the same. Again, it's a stunt--it's not hockey.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruins8. Show bruins8's posts

    Re: Overtime

    whats wrong with a tie? if teams play 65 min and score is tied nothing wrong with that...until playoffs play till it ends>>>  3 pt games stink....old way was best>>>shootouts shouldnt determine a game...no other sport ends that way...still need the 1 point tie so there wont be all even number pts...to play 65 min 1 way and end it on shootouts is just dumb 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BruinsUnite. Show BruinsUnite's posts

    Re: Overtime

    Ties make more sense. Shootouts are fun to watch but we all know they're not real. That is, the more deserving team doesn't always win. It's more of a luck thing (not entirely but largely so).

    I've thought about the extended 4 - on -4 OT thing before and I think it's a great idea. Give them a couple more minutes to rest and have them fight it out 'til they drop.

    4 - on - 4 raises the probability of a winner. Endurance is a better determinant of a deserved win than the shootout.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dkrejci46. Show dkrejci46's posts

    Re: Overtime

    jammin there are like 800000 trade threads, shouldn't be hard to find
     

Share