Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!jeff From: jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey Subject: Re: shootouts and other rule changes Message-ID: <1580@dciem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 11:13:54 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1580 Posted: Wed Jun 19 11:13:54 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 13:25:58 EDT References: <1569@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: jeff@dciem.UUCP ( Richardson) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 89 Summary: >how about running a series of 3-on-3's, or >3-on-2's? That might give us the "best" of both worlds. It is still a >team game but would actually decide something. It sure beats the hell out of shootouts because of the team element. I think it would be far more exciting too, because of the possibility of passing and defence. But I still don't see anything wrong with having a regular season game end in a tie, and I think having tie games is preferable to resorting to shootouts or 3-on-2's, but overtime's okay because it's real hockey. >HOWEVER, I would still >give the losing team a point in the standings for playing to a tie in >overtime (the shootout has been proposed for breaking ties after >overtime). That's not a bad idea, but if you think that the losing team deserves more than the minimum number of points for a shootout loss (as I do), then the same logic says that the winning team deserves less than the maximum number of points for a shootout win, i.e. 0 pts for a regulation or overtime loss, 1 pt for a shootout loss, 2 pts for a shootout win, and 3 pts for a regulation or overtime win. I think the total number of points in the standings awarded at each game must be the same. If not, one game may be worth more than another, which doesn't make sense, and there will a potential for rigging games. >> People argue in favour of them by saying that >>the penalty shot is the most exciting play in hockey. Personally, I find >>overtime much more exciting. > >The reason penalty shots are exciting is that they are so rare. It >would get boring to watch (I think) if we got them in 30% (or whatever >percent of games end in ties) of the games played. I agree 100%, and I'm glad to hear that someone else feels the same way. >As for 5 minutes of >overtime I have to agree with Bill Torrey when he said "5 minutes of >overtime is like 5 seconds of sex." I'll have to agree that 5 minutes of overtime is pretty useless, since at least one team usually plays for the tie anyway. However, it usually produces some excitement, and if no goals are scored, that's okay because there's nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie. I wouldn't mind seeing it extended to 10 minutes, but I wouldn't want it to go any longer than that in the regular season because, in my opinion, if they're still tied at that point, then they deserve to split the two points. (Actually, I was always against regular season overtime because I figured that if the game was tied after 60 minutes, each team deserved a point, but now that I've seen it, I'm in favour of 5 or 10 minute overtimes because a win in that situation is usually a result of gutsy play and the ability to perform well in key situations, both of which are qualities that should be rewarded. Shootouts reward the ability to perform well in key situations, but I've seen them in the NASL and in hockey leagues I've played in, and I still hate them for all the reasons I've already mentioned.) >I remember an old WHA suggestion >(I think it was Billy Harris' idea): curve the blue line so that it is >equidistant from the center of the net. Then the wingers could keep up with >the center (carrying the puck) more easily and not go offside so much. You >think hockey has high scoring games now? I've heard that suggestion more recently and it seems to make a lot of sense because I believe the off-side rule exists to prevent players from camping in the other team's zone waiting for long passes, and the fact that the wingers can't skate a little ahead of the puck is just a side-effect. Logically, it doesn't make too much sense to force the wingers to slow down or stop to wait for the puck if it's only a bit behind them. Since I am a winger who likes to skate but is not terribly good at carrying the puck, it would be ideal for me, but there are a couple of points that must be considered: - I'd add the condition that nobody could enter the area between where the blue line is now and where it would be if it was curved until the puck crosses the centre red line, to prevent camping. - If the blue line was curved in closer to the net, it would also have to be made thicker so that once the puck was over the line, the point men would still be able to stand approximately where they are now. - It would make life a lot tougher on the defensemen, and it may lead to a significant increase in scoring, so I'd have to oppose it on those grounds because I think the NHL is high scoring enough now. (However, I'd love to see them do it in the league I play in.) > Rick Gillespie -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff