posted at 11/27/2009 5:04 PM EST
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.
posted at 11/27/2009 5:10 PM EST
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
posted at 11/27/2009 5:37 PM EST
#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.
posted at 11/28/2009 12:43 AM EST
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.
posted at 11/28/2009 9:28 AM EST
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.
posted at 11/28/2009 11:49 AM EST
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
posted at 11/28/2009 2:25 PM EST
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.
posted at 11/28/2009 2:56 PM EST
jammin there are like 800000 trade threads, shouldn't be hard to find