The ShootOut!

[The_Vulk]

As we know, the WHL will no longer be allowing games to be ended in ties.

After regulation time, a 5 minute OverTime is played.

If it is still tied, we go into the ShootOut.

Well, several teams have now had this later happen to them.

Do you think having a shootout to decide tied games is good? Exciting?

[3rebels]

Call me old fashioned or just plain old, cause I think the shootout is anti-hockey. The only thing going for it is the fact when you have a so-so team that can hang on till the end, maybe the game can be won by the shootout. Case in point, RDR vs. PA. Our first win, but what a way to lose. See how the season goes and how many games are decided by the shootout. :thumb:

[Tinner]

I think that one of the reasons for the shootout is the fact that the NHL is using it to sell hockey in non-traditional hockey cities. Also could be that ending games in ties is like kissing your sister. That said, I think the shoot out is a terrible way to end a game. Play overtime at 4 on 4 for 5, then 3 on 3 for 5 and if its still tied....so be it.

[Tipped Off]

I would have preferred a 4th option to the poll...teams play until there is a winner. But without that option, I picked option 2....remain tied.

My favorite Idea is still to have teams alternate Power plays until the game is decided. Team A starts off on a 2 minute PP. If they score then Team B goes on the PP to try and Tie it up. If Team A doesn't score in its 2 minutes, than team B goes on the PP to try and win it. Home team gets to decide who goes first on the PP. there are advantages and disadvantages to going 1st. You keep doing this until someone wins.

[Beaner]

I have no problem with the shootout. It adds some excitement.

Playing 3-3 for another 5 minutes seems to me to be as un-natural for hockey as the shoot-out. Alternating power plays is ok, but lets face it, the only way to truely satisfy everyone and still get a winner is to play until there is a winner. But that is unrealistic, especially for the Dub, considering these kids are still in school and travel by bus. Playoffs is different but we all know that.

I believe the shootout is the best way to get a winner, for every game, and still keep teams on their schedules for travel and school.


However, where I can see it being a problem is at the end of the season, where 2 teams are fighting for the final playoff position, and that position gets decided in a shoot-out. That will suck. Losing a playoff spot in a shoot-out will be very demoralizing for a team.

That is when you will really see the critics of the shoot-out come out in force.

[The_Vulk]

... 2 teams are fighting for the final playoff position, and that position gets decided in a shoot-out. That will suck. Losing a playoff spot in a shoot-out will be very demoralizing for a team.

That is when you will really see the critics of the shoot-out come out in force.
But in International Hockey Tournaments, deciding games, even Medal games, the shoot out is used.

Did not Team Canada loss a game in a Shoot Out not that long ago?

[RunTheGoalie]

The international game has no hitting, is trap happy even without the redline, and is a pathetic joke compared to North American hockey.

My problem with the shootout is that it is not hockey. It is one part of hockey, but not the game itself. It's as ridiculous as holding a fastest skater competition or a hardest shot competition to determine the winner.

3 on 3 is somewhat gimmicky as well, but at least the core values of the entire game of hockey are still there, especially the need for teamwork.

[Fight Guy]

The shoot out pisses me off. It's a team game, not a 3 player show. I prefer to see games decided by a team effort, not one to three players shooting on net. Ive said it before and I'll say it again. I they wanted to bring that aspect into the game, make penalty shots more frequent. There was one in the Pats/Rebels game. It was exciting and it makes up for a player having a breakaway taken away by penalty. I would hate to see a team play great all game, then have two or three snipers on another team win the game for them. Just stupid.

[CHtoo]

I watched a Bruins/Rangers pre season game. They had a shootout at the end and it was terrible. Maybe as it was because it meant nothing but the players hardly even tried. They had to go to five shooters to finish it.

It s##ks.

PS why give the losers a point? :confused: It should be winner takes all then it really would mean something.

[Hitmen1]

I love having a shootout in the game but I think its a terrible way to break a tie game. Yes they needed to get rid of ties but not via shootouts. I really wish they would have done 4 on 4 OT, and if still tied try 3 on 3 OT for 5 minutes.

[Flathead]

Everything from the anti shoot out side has been said, and I agree with it all. It's a very sad, almost embarrising gimmick. Hockey's a team sport and there's no team effort in a shoot out.

[WHEATMAN]

whats wrong with a 10 minute 4 on 4 overtime? thats the way the league should have went, as flathead said its a team game, and if both teams play a hard game and it ends in a tie, so be it, in all, i dont think the shootout will be around long

[Bob in Everett]

So why fix it.

[Kamfan]

I like it. If the game wasn't going to be decided otherwise (65 minutes of hockey), then I don't see the harm. It's not like they're doing it instead of OT.

[GBG BLEED BLUE]

I personally do not like the shootout and what it basically does is makes the rest of the game a 3 man show and one team has worked their asses off and they have nothing to show for it except one point and a shootout lose, I am not a fan of shootouts at all, sure it adds excitement to the game for the fans but that is about it. The shootout is nothing but a 3 man show and a battle between goalies. I agree why not just go to 4 on 4 10 minute overtime after the 5 minute OT. This is my opinion on shootouts.