PDA

View Full Version : Shootout Possibility for '05-'06?



Beaner
03-03-2005, 11:33 AM
from, http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/home.html


Players love shootout rule

Little resistance to league wanting change
By TERRY KOSHAN -- Toronto Sun

Wojtek Wolski would love to have an opportunity to end a hockey game with one shot but wonders whether it would be a healthy endeavour from a team's perspective.

At its board of governors meeting last month, the Ontario Hockey League approved in principle to adopt the shootout next season to decide games still tied after five minutes of overtime. The league did so with the understanding there is a process that involves discussions with the Canadian Hockey League, but it appears the shootout will be part of the OHL's regular season in 2005-06.

"It would be pretty exciting, but there would be some players who would work so hard through a game and overtime and then not have a chance to decide it," Wolski, the Brampton Battalion's leading scorer, said. "It would be a heartbreaker. But I would like to be a part of it."

Interestingly, a couple of OHL goalies said they would not have any problem with having a game end with a shootout.

"I think teams would work a lot harder to score a goal in overtime, but if the league brings it in, I'm up for it," Justin Peters of the St. Michael's Majors said. "If I've just made 50 saves in a 1-1 tie, I don't think I would have problems in a shootout."

GLAD

The Mississauga IceDogs' David Shantz was glad to learn of the possibility of shootouts.

"Elimination of ties? Good," Shantz said. "You want to rise to the occasion. The opportunity to show your skills and ability to people who are watching would be great."

The OHL's competition committee also is investigating some other rule changes, not unlike those undertaken by the American Hockey League this season. Included are possibly bringing back the tag-up offside rule and widening the blue lines and centre-ice line.

So it looks like the OHL is just waiting for CHL approval to bring this in as they have approved this themselves internally. If the CHL approves this could the Dub and Q be far behind?

Jovorock
03-03-2005, 12:39 PM
Beaner you should of done a poll for this topic.

At the end of 5 minute OT I would welcome this. It would be very exciting for the fans. Rockets have eleven ties and the Canes have a league lead twelve ties to date. This is too many and would only make it more exciting as long as you still get one point for a OT loss.

Beaner
03-03-2005, 12:50 PM
Beaner you should of done a poll for this topic.

Your wish is my command.

:)

tazndevil
03-03-2005, 01:13 PM
Get rid of the overtime loos point and give the teams a point for losing in a shoot out.

Then I'll think about it.

Gotta get rid of that stupid 'losers point' first tho. It's like the single point in the CFL. Not good enough to win----but here's a point for coming out.

Still trying to get used to that fourth column. And goalies still only get a loss in their stats. No OT loss for them.

I guess if you changed the fourth column to SO loss instead of OT loss--- I'd give it a shot.

REGLAR SEASONLY ONLY. No deciding the WHL championship by a shootout.

Just my thoughts

Taz

Teaps
03-03-2005, 01:54 PM
Of Course Regular Season only...Playoffs are an unlimited amount of 20 minute OT periods.....

grumphy
03-03-2005, 02:05 PM
Playoffs are an unlimited amount of 20 minute OT periods.....
AAAAAAHHHHHHH if only all games could be decided this way------no ties, play till ya drop------like the old days :thumb:

Tinner
03-03-2005, 02:09 PM
the shoot out is an american ploy to attract fans, otherwise, trying to americanize a canadian game. we don't need to make the games any longer. lets come up with something to allow the teams to score more goals during regular time, like full 2 minute penalties, 4 on 4's, smaller goalie equipment, no trap defensives..................geez, hasnt anyone thought of this before......duh

CHtoo
03-03-2005, 02:39 PM
Shootouts are for losers.
They only appeal to the basketball mentality.

Hockey is a team sport NOT an individual sport.
Shootouts only aide those who have pure goal scorers or an awesome goaltender. Teams who work their butts off for a win are at a disadvantage.

Rebel66
03-03-2005, 02:44 PM
As somebody who has absolutely hated the penalty shootout used to decide major soccer tournaments* I'd have a little trouble accepting this. Perhaps in the regular season it would create some excitement for the fans and decide tied games. However the overtime sessions preceding them could turn into a trapfest especially if they decided to get rid of the so called "loser point" and tack that on the the team reaching, then losing, the shootout.

I'm sure I'd find the shootout's exciting and all that but, I'm with rebel39 on this (fancy that!), find other ways to open up the game first.



*My opinion on the shootout is probably tainted since the England soccer team suck so bad at them and have been knocked out of numerous tournaments by them. It just seems so wrong to lose in such a fashion. I mean the world cup, the most watched sporting event in the world, alongside the Olympics, has been decided by the shootout. WRONG!

Beaner
03-03-2005, 02:52 PM
Sorry guys, but you can hardly look at Americans and blame them for the shootout - The Shootout comes from Soccer which is most definatley an invention from Europe.

Let's look at the 3 major sports in the US.

Basketball - Play overtime until there is a winner.
Baseball - Same thing.
Football - 2 overtime quarters, first team to score wins. Otherwise its a tie.

I just don't like it when we blame everything on our neighbours to the South.

The thing I hate now is the tie just sucks, I want a winner for every game. However to ask kids in school to potentially play 2 or 3 extra periods of hockey to get a winner seems rather unfair to them.

Maybe increasing O/T to 10 minutes of 4-4 would help, and then get rid of 1 point for losing in O/T.

WHL Rules
03-03-2005, 02:56 PM
What's wrong with a tie? :confused:

Off topic: Rebel66, I can understand your frustration but what would be your alternative?

Rebel66
03-03-2005, 03:05 PM
Off topic: Rebel66, I can understand your frustration but what would be your alternative?

I've always liked the hockey playoffs. Play until someone scores. So what if it takes a long time. Players get tied, they make mistakes, someone would score evetually. Reduce the players on the field to eight a side or something. I don't know, something like that. Anything is better than losing the world cup on a penalty shootout. I understand that these are short tournaments and TV, gods that they are, would not like a 'play till you score' scenario but it would be the best way. At least they did introduce the golden goal rule in the World cup and European Championship. Germany even won the Euro on a golden goal. But the game still would have gone to a shootout after 30 minutes anyway. Ah heck, they're not going to change it I know so I'm going to have to accept it finally. (Perhaps the England team could actually start practising taking them, hence winning a few, then maybe I'd be happier. :D You can only lose to the Germans on pens so many times you know!!!)

edit: IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with a tie.

Sput
03-03-2005, 03:33 PM
I'm not totally in favor of the shoot out, but it might inject some excitment for the fans. I read somehwhere that they were looking into having 2 OT's. The first one 5 minutes 4-on4, and the second 5 minutes 3-on3. I'm not sure that would work either, but you wouldn't see teams being able to smoother the puck just to salvage the single point.

WHL Rules
03-03-2005, 03:59 PM
I've always liked the hockey playoffs. Play until someone scores. So what if it takes a long time. Players get tied, they make mistakes, someone would score evetually. Reduce the players on the field to eight a side or something. I don't know, something like that. Anything is better than losing the world cup on a penalty shootout. I understand that these are short tournaments and TV, gods that they are, would not like a 'play till you score' scenario but it would be the best way. At least they did introduce the golden goal rule in the World cup and European Championship. Germany even won the Euro on a golden goal. But the game still would have gone to a shootout after 30 minutes anyway. Ah heck, they're not going to change it I know so I'm going to have to accept it finally. (Perhaps the England team could actually start practising taking them, hence winning a few, then maybe I'd be happier. :D You can only lose to the Germans on pens so many times you know!!!)

edit: IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with a tie.


As I said I can understand your frustration (believe me for an Austrian there is nothing worse than a German win! :burningma ) but I don't think that your North American (IIHF tournaments also have shootouts) hockey approach (play until you score) is such a good idea. I think 120 minutes is the longest a match should last. There was a FIFA study that stated everything longer than that would mean a serious medical risk for the players involved.
Btw, the FIFA abolished the Golden Goal, so it's back to 2x15 min overtime and shootout at the World Cup.

Tipped Off
03-03-2005, 06:00 PM
someone in a previous post compared the overtimes of baseball, football and basketball. Baseball & basketball have timed overtimes and play until there is a winner. Football, on the other hand, is sudden death. First team to score wins...and to top it off they flip a coin to decide who gets the ball first. This has been an item for discussion here in the states for a long time. The team that wins the toss gets a couple first downs, kicks a field goal, & wins the game. The other team never even got to touch the ball. How fair is that?

That being said, College football does this: Each team gets the ball at the 25 yard line. If you can get a TD, great. If not, you kick a field goal. Once your offense is done, you go on defense. The other team has the opportunity to match or beat what you just did. The first team to outscore the other wins.

Why couldn't hockey do the same thing? The home team decides if they want the power play 1st or 2nd. One team gets a 2 minute power play. If they score in their power play, the other team has to match them. If they don't score, the other team need only score to win. You could decide this two ways...keep going back and forth as long as you remain tied OR if the first team scores in say 30 seconds, then the 2nd team has only a 30 second PP to match them. Either way works for me! Theoretically at least your whole team is involved in the decision. The advantage of being 2nd is if you know the other team has scored, you could pull your goalie for the last minute/30 seconds/whatever of the PP to try and get yorr goal...that is, unless your Kevin constantine, then you'd choose to go first and never even send out your goalie.

Flathead
03-03-2005, 06:56 PM
Shootouts are for losers.
They only appeal to the basketball mentality.

Hockey is a team sport NOT an individual sport.
Shootouts only aide those who have pure goal scorers or an awesome goaltender. Teams who work their butts off for a win are at a disadvantage.

Could not of said it better! Try telling americans that if an NFL game is tied, the two QB's will throw the ball threw a tire, until one guy misses, or they have to throw hail mary's until a touchdown is scored. This would take away from the team game, just the same as a shootout would in hockey. Ridiculous!

Fight Guy
03-03-2005, 07:09 PM
Im not a fan of shootouts. I want to see a game end by a team playing. Seems unfair to have a shootout. Example...there could be two teams playing a game that is important, and one team is good because they have good players who can score, and the other who dont have as good a players, but win because they play well as a team. Now who is going to have the upperhand in a shootout? Hockey is a team game and should be played that way. Sure shootouts are very exciting, but I just dont like to see it deciding a game. If you wnat to see that kind of stuff, the league should make penalty shots more frequent than they are now. Penalty shot are way more exciting than a shootout I think, and they happen when there's a penalty. I just think it would be better than making shootouts apart of the game.

a7x
03-03-2005, 07:18 PM
Still trying to get used to that fourth column. And goalies still only get a loss in their stats. No OT loss for them.
Taz


Goalies right now get a loss in their stats when they lose in overtime. There is no overtime loss statistic for goalies.

Rebel66
03-03-2005, 08:07 PM
Btw, the FIFA abolished the Golden Goal, so it's back to 2x15 min overtime and shootout at the World Cup.

I didn't know that. Well that's real progress isn't it? :burningma

Like I said, it's a reality in soccer, has been for a long time, but I still don't have to like it. A 0-0 draw getting decided on pens is just awesome.

ihlemic10
03-03-2005, 09:19 PM
I think ending the game with a Shootout will be like ending Baseball games with a Home-Run derby. It just wouldn't be right for the game.

Orv
03-03-2005, 10:43 PM
I hate the idea of a shootout. Like many have said before hockey is a team game and should be decided by a team not a few players and a goalie.

I'll use the Flames for an example. They work their asses off for 65 minutes against the Av's only to be tied. Well that's all fine an dandy until Sakic, Forsberg, Hejduk, Tanguay an co. get to have their say. I wouldn't want to have it decided like that.

My idea is to stick with 4 on 4 OT because their is more room but make it 10 minutes. Coaches will want to play their stars, they will get tired over the 10 minutes, make mistakes, someone scores. Just like that.

Tipped Off
03-04-2005, 11:09 AM
I guess no one liked my OT power play idea? Oh well, it was worth a shot.

tazndevil
03-04-2005, 12:26 PM
I know a few of the minor teams around town, most notably the 2 AJHL teams, when their games go into OT, they play 5 mins. 4 on 4 then if still tied play 5 mins 3 on 3.

Fun to watch, but I don't think I would like to be the forward in the 69th minute of the game skating my butt off trying to keep up to everyone else.

As I said tho, it is a lot of fun to watch.

Taz

Beaner
03-04-2005, 01:36 PM
I guess no one liked my OT power play idea? Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Actually, I think it's an interesting idea. The CFL does the same thing, I believe.

For those who missed Tipped Off's Idea.


The home team decides if they want the power play 1st or 2nd. One team gets a 2 minute power play. If they score in their power play, the other team has to match them. If they don't score, the other team need only score to win. You could decide this two ways...keep going back and forth as long as you remain tied OR if the first team scores in say 30 seconds, then the 2nd team has only a 30 second PP to match them. Either way works for me! Theoretically at least your whole team is involved in the decision. The advantage of being 2nd is if you know the other team has scored, you could pull your goalie for the last minute/30 seconds/whatever of the PP to try and get yorr goal...that is, unless your Kevin constantine, then you'd choose to go first and never even send out your goalie.

My changes would be as follows;

Full 2 Minute PP 5-4.
If still tied after both teams have had the power play, go to 4-3 PP.
If still tied after 4-3 go to 5-3.
Team scores shorthanded, it's over immediatley. Think that goes without saying.
No pulling of the goaltender period. I think that's too big an advantage for the team that goes 2nd.
The team with the power play Starts it's advantage with a face-off in the attacking zone

One last thought I have is, make it the full 2 minute power play. Score as many times as you can and the other team has to match. Not to sure how that would work with shorthanded goals, but meh.

Nice job thinking outside the box Tipped. :thumb:

RunTheGoalie
03-05-2005, 01:41 PM
I'm not totally in favor of the shoot out, but it might inject some excitment for the fans. I read somehwhere that they were looking into having 2 OT's. The first one 5 minutes 4-on4, and the second 5 minutes 3-on3. I'm not sure that would work either, but you wouldn't see teams being able to smoother the puck just to salvage the single point.

The AJHL does this, and it is far, far more exciting than a shootout, imnsho.

In the AJHL this season, 90 games went to overtime. Only 13 resulted in a tie. Fully 85% of overtime games are decided under this format. I would much rather see this plan for ending OT games than a shootout.


As for all of the people who talk about how a shootout would add excitement for the fans, let me ask you: Do you consider the WHL to be boring?


Tipped off - I'll credit your creativity, but that is an absolutely horrible idea. The NCAA/CFL overtime format is an absolute joke, and would be even worse in hockey. The concept of giving teams an artificial advantage is even worse than reducing a team sport to home run derby.

IceMan
03-05-2005, 08:18 PM
Shootouts SUCK. No worse way to end a team game than to put the puck in the hands of a few hotshots.

I'm more in favor of 5 minutes 4 on 4 followed by 5 minutes of 3 on 3 than I am with the alternating powerplay idea, but anything's better than all the ties and OTLs. The "all important point on the road" doesn't mean all that much when everyone else is doing it too :)

Rooselk
03-05-2005, 10:25 PM
I hadn't considered two overtimes of 4 on 4 and 3 on 3. That is an outstanding idea.

HAF
03-05-2005, 10:43 PM
Actually, I think it's an interesting idea. The CFL does the same thing, I believe.

For those who missed Tipped Off's Idea.



My changes would be as follows;

Full 2 Minute PP 5-4.
If still tied after both teams have had the power play, go to 4-3 PP.
If still tied after 4-3 go to 5-3.
Team scores shorthanded, it's over immediatley. Think that goes without saying.
No pulling of the goaltender period. I think that's too big an advantage for the team that goes 2nd.
The team with the power play Starts it's advantage with a face-off in the attacking zone

One last thought I have is, make it the full 2 minute power play. Score as many times as you can and the other team has to match. Not to sure how that would work with shorthanded goals, but meh.

Nice job thinking outside the box Tipped. :thumb:

I like that idea!

Beaner
03-07-2005, 04:23 PM
from, http://www.tsn.ca/chl/news_story.asp?ID=117491&hubName=chl


CHL considering bringing in shootouts

Canadian Press

3/7/2005

LONGUEUIL, Que. (CP) - The commissioners of the Canadian Hockey League are going to discuss going to a shootout to decide tied games in an effort to inject more excitement into major junior hockey.

Quebec Major Junior Hockey League commissioner Gilles Courteau said Monday he and Ontario Hockey League counterpart David Branch and Western Hockey League commissioner Ron Robison will discuss shootouts when they meet at the Memorial Cup in London, Ont., in May.

''We have to do something that is going to please the fans,'' Courteau said Monday during a conference call.

Major junior games that are tied following overtime are currently recorded as ties. The incorporation of shootouts to determine a result would mark a major change for the CHL, which markets itself as the No. 1 development league for the NHL.

NHL teams do not use shootouts and the league doesn't seem to have any intention of doing so. But the NHL's minor-league affiliates in the American Hockey League do decide tied games by a shootout and the team that loses in a shootout gets one point.

International playoff games are decided by shootouts.

The CHL had a dry run with the shootout format in November and December when it hosted a Russian travelling team in a six-game series. Two of the games, both against the QMJHL, went to shootouts which the Russians won.

''The shootout, from the experience we've seen against Russia last November, the way the people reacted at the end of the game, shows us that people want to see it,'' Courteau said.

There are strong opinions on both sides of the argument for and against shootouts. Some say penalty shots provide the most exciting moments in hockey and a series of them to decide a game ups the thrill quotient. Others say it is a cheap way to decide a game.

Kitchener Rangers coach and general manager Peter DeBoer sees both sides of the argument. He says shootouts would add some spice to the regular season, but have no place in the post-season.

''I had the fortune of playing in the IHL in the early 1990s with the shootout and I thought it was great,'' DeBoer said.

''It's an exciting event. Nobody leaves the arena early if there's the possibility of a shootout.''

But he was emphatically anti-shootout when it comes to playoff games.

''Absolutely not,'' he said. ''I think it's almost a travesty that the Olympics uses it to decide games.''

Many European leagues use the shootout, yet Rangers defenceman Boris Valabik, who is from Slovakia, has reservations about it.

''It's not a new thing for me,'' he said. ''I don't really think it's a good idea to bring it to North American hockey. It works good in Europe, but they're different kinds of players. They play a different style.

''I don't know if people enjoy it more than seeing a full period of hockey.''

Valabik said the shootout is the great equalizer in that a weak team can beat a better team by trapping the opposition for three periods and overtime and not bothering to even attempt scoring, and then taking its chances in the shootout.

''I was part of a shootout in an under-18 tournament against Russia and we won and to be honest we didn't have a better team than Russia,'' he said.

''I don't think it's really fair for the better teams, but maybe fans would enjoy it, maybe not. Maybe it's more interesting for the fans but obviously not for the fans whose team loses

Looks to me it's coming, unless they can come up with a better plan.

Chipper
03-07-2005, 06:11 PM
I gota say I like the way it is I have never been a fan of shoot outs. Old traditions should stay don't need to change things just to have a winner every night.