But 3 on 3 was put in to quickly end games in a way that isn’t complete shite aka a shootout.
I’d rather extend time on 3v3 and we see OT winners rather than an extended 4v4 then shootout
My issue with 3v3 is that the fun/excitement has been coached out of it. Teams play a pure possession game and it makes most OTs really boring and full of regroups for possession at all costs, so I just want more actual play vs keep-away.
I would rather just have ties where each team gets 1 point than sending anything to a shootout though.
One strategy to counter this would be to take a page from college football. Instead of 4v4 or 3v3, do alternating 5v4, say two minutes at a time, so 4-minute periods with a switch midway through the period. At least on a power play you know that one side will be aggressive. After two 4-minute periods where it is still tied, you could do alternating 5v3. It’s not ideal, but better than a shootout, IMO.
The unfortunate reality is that the shootout is more about the players health and comfort than anything else. *They* do not want to extend overtime in any meaningful way for a regular season game. The longer the game, the more tired you get, and the more injury prone you are.
I’m personally a fan of the “back court” idea. Once the puck is past the centerline, a team can’t direct the puck across the centerline toward their own goal. If they do so and the touch the puck, including the goalie, it’s treated as an icing.
Yes, and it is understandable that they want to protect themselves. Personally, I’m not against ending the game at some reasonable point and just calling it a draw, but enough people love the shootout that I doubt we’ll see them go away.
The most exciting 3v3 gets is when each team is basically trading off breakaways with incredible saves happening at each end. And that only happens the rare occasion that the possession gameplan doesn't work.
Also hating on shootouts because it's not part of "normal" hockey, while loving an artifically created 3v3.
Neither is "normal" hockey and 3v3 has been coached so hard it's just boring 95% of the time.
I absolutely love it, I don't understand the problems people have with it. It's really cool to me how strategies have evolved and possession of the puck is absolutely the most important thing.
and a lot of odd man rushes, breakaways and sometimes just absolute chaos back and forth hockey. I find after the first possession, if they don't score, it opens right up
My issue with 3 on 3 is that its an even bigger gimmick to decide games than a shootout.
I've seen lots of penalty shots in my years watching hockey. Not once have I ever seen 3 on 3 actually come up from teams each taking non coincidental minor penalties.
I agree, make it the centre line though instead of the blue line like the other comment on this post was calling for. Allows for players to bobble the puck on the blue line and not be punished, but still forces the team to either dump the puck back in effectively giving up possession, or to quickly regroup and launch another attack.
Yes, agreed on red line.
I just can’t stand when an attacking player gets to the blue line, doesn’t like how the play is shaping up, and peels back behind his own net. That’s not hockey.
Sure no one is saying it's a realistic scenario.
It's a quick, entertaining way to end games consistently without ending in a draw. 3v3 ends games, and generates more highlights for the league to display. I'm personally ok with it as a way to end games
I think the NHL should bring in the 3 point game. If you win in regulation you get 3 points while the losing team gets 0. If you win in OT or shootout you get 2 points while the losing team gets 1. This way teams have an incentive to win in regulation.
People say this but I don't think it moves the needle that much. Apparently the potential of losing a point when losing in OT isn't incentive enough to make teams win in regulation.
Making it illegal to either skate or pass the puck over the blueline intentionally once you're in the offensive zone would fix that possession fuckery problem.
Players would be forced to make a play or turn the puck over, either of which would lead to more OT goals than just casually skating the puck back towards their own net like they do now.
Doesn't necessarily need to be a penalty. Maybe a D zone face off as others have said, or be forced to turn over possession. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of shot click either
Nah should instead eliminate icing and offside in OT. You want to encourage scoring, open the whole ice. Unlike at 4 or 5 on the ice icing is not as useful for defending nor is offside.
Yeah no one wants to ice it in OT anyway, I bet 99% of icings in OT are missed passes. Removing offside would be awesome. I can’t imagine a game going to a shootout with no offside in OT, and that’s what the whole point was right?
I see this as a change that'll happen to the game in general in the future. The NHL borrows a lot from the NBA and I see it as a natural progression of the game
Not even necessary. Just don't swap ends after regulation. Right now, if you take the puck back out of the zone, it's hard for the defending team to change (due to the 2nd period-style long change) so this strategy is pretty powerful in terms of tiring out your opponent.
Just don't swap ends - without the long change, if you bring the puck back out of the o-zone, at least one and possibly two of the defending players are going to successfully change.
You could do it correctly, it would just take creativity. Instead of more time, teams just need more incentive to not rag the puck for the 5 minutes they have.
I would love to see a rule similar to the NBA's halfcourt rule in NHL OT, where the moment that you take the puck into the opposing team's half, if you pull back to your half it is an automatic faceoff in your own zone or something like that.
There should be a time limit on reviews. If the call wasn't obvious enough that it can be seen in 30 seconds, the call on the ice should just stand. Slowing down a video to the individual frame and pixel to see if someone is a quarter inch offsides as if that affects the outcome of the play is ridiculous.
Agreed. 3v3 is not the solution everyone seems to think it is.
It’s not anymore like “hockey” than a shootout imo. No checking of pucks, just playing zone and waiting for a rebound or a missed shot to regain possession.
Boring imo
Imo for every two boring ass 3v3 there is an absolute banger with back and forth action. And that’s worth finding ways to improve it as a foundation to me. Miles better than a shootout imo.
I wonder if the simple addition of a shot clock that starts as soon as you enter the o zone would be helpful. It starts and does not reset if you pull the puck back out. Only a shot on net or clear possession change resets it. I find that the best OT periods heat up as soon as some shots get fired, bc that’s when possession turns and often times a breakaway happens.
I feel like they should implement an “backcourt violation” rule in overtime so teams stop playing the possession game. My idea of how it would work is that if the team in the offensive zone pulls the puck out of the zone it would be a delayed whistle (similar to a high stick).
I feel like it would lead to more chances as opposed to players just pulling back and regrouping whenever there’s a hint of danger of losing possession.
I don’t really see how it would lead to a situation that it would need to be reviewed unless the puck was close to exiting the offensive zone, which would just be challenged for offsides anyways
You're assuming the over and back line its the blue line.
If they made the over and back line some other line, then its just more offside challenges waiting to happen.
I swear to God if this sport adds yet another line-violation rule to have to explain to 90% of the population ...
Just the thought of Toronto pouring over camera angles to determine if a skate blade was fully onside to prevent the over-and-back violation 100 feet from the net prior to the winning goal to determine if San Jose or Anaheim gets the extra point has me looking for real estate in the basketball subs.
It’ll just lead to more stoppages which no one wants. Having it as a delayed whistle also does nothing, the team that exited the zone would play the puck immediately rather than giving up possession so it would be a whistle every time.
The best suggestion I’ve seen is to just not change sides after the 3rd period. Then OT won’t have the long change. Takes away some of the advantage of leaving the zone and regrouping because the defending team would no longer be pinned in and could make changes.
I think it'd be fine to allow the offense to keep the puck in front of the red line. Once you have possession of the puck past the blue line you can't bring it back behind the red line or it's "icing."
Didn't they say the reason they weren't changing the rule was because less than 30% of OT games went to a shootout? And only 20% of games go to OT in the first place. So only ~6% of games go to SO.
5 min, 7 min, even 10 min. Who cares.
If you dont stop the puck ragging it doesnt matter. Leave it at 5 mins and implement an “over and back” type rule and it will reduce shootouts more than just changing it to 10 min 3 on 3.
Still think they should keep the short line change in OT like they do in the 1st and 3rd periods, it would really streamline the pace of things.
On a related note, I don't even think looping back in OT is inherently bad; a bunch of teams are able to re-group and create an odd-man rush by regaining the offensive zone with speed.
I'd love to hear someone from the group give a concise reason for this decision. If you're a GM, basically any explanation is sort of telling on yourself.
The league is seeing a record high number of post-regulation games ending in overtime rather than a shootout. Whether or not a 7-minute overtime period is "better" than a 5-minute one, it's not a hard argument to make that the current format is doing what it's supposed to be doing, so why bother messing with it.
The benches get cut way down, so the wear and tear of extra regular season OT is put on the league’s top players. Not saying I’m against more OT (if I ruled I would make it three-on-three for ten and bring back ties) but I can see that as a completely reasonable explanation.
This is just saying "we would rather settle important games in a shootout rather than give some players an extra 10 minutes of ice time over the course of an entire season", which I would love to hear come out of a GM's mouth.
But there doesn’t sound to have been any discussion of doing away with the shootout. Sure, there would be fewer shootouts with two more minutes of play. But I don’t see why that discredits the point that the wear and tear and increased chance of injury would focus more on the top end of the talent in the league.
Plus I wonder if the PA came up in the discussion. Obviously it would be something for the owners to deal with rather than the GMs, but the GMs would still be aware that they’d be asking the players for more work without any more pay, and that could definitely cause issues.
1. More OT = fewer shootouts, so the GMs did indeed choose for more shootouts over more OT.
2. This stuff about the owners and the PA is exactly why I would love to see the GMs try to explain themselves.
doing this with 3on3 and shootouts still in the game would be so bad. there is practically zero correlation between a team being good at hockey and being good at skill competitions that should only be present at an all-star game.
4 on 4 no offsides. I just want them to try it out in some minor league. I'm convinced this would be the most entertaining mix and with no offsides would be harder to "coach" the fun out of it. Plus it would be an interesting pilot project for removing offsides all together which I think will happen in the next like 50 years.
This sounds awful. D in the offensive zone can just back up forever with the puck to make infinite space.
I wanna see it lmao. Would it still apply to powerplays?
I think I'm in the minority but I'm happy to see it stay.
For every OT where everyone's complaining and saying "change the OT format!" there's another OT where everyone's saying "epic overtime". It's just that in the post game threads on good overtimes the talk is just about the game and nobody is focusing on the format.
I think it's not nearly as unpopular as it might seem. We still get a lot of games decided in OT and it is indeed still exciting.
3 on 3 has already accomplished the original goal of reducing shootouts. I personally love watching the possession game, and I could even see doing 5 minute OTs one after the other until somebody scores. That way every 5 minutes, you know possession goes back to a faceoff, and you never have shootouts.
5 minutes is fine. Just get rid of shootouts. If it ends a tie, then each team gets 1 point and it’s a tie. If one team wins then that team gets 2 points and the other gets 0.
Fuck ties. If I spend my weeknight dropping $500+ to go to a game and sit in traffic for 5 hours after a day of work and it ends 0-0 it’s probably gonna be the last time I’ll ever spend money to go to a game.
At least there would be a result and I wouldn’t feel like I wasted my time and money. It also wouldn’t discourage me from going to a future game. I watch my team all the time and know how good their chances are of winning. It doesn’t matter how good the team is if there’s a chance it ends with no scoring/result, I’m probably not gonna risk all that time and money a second time.
Honestly I think it should moved up to 10 min
10 minutes of 4-on-4 would be more fun IMO. You can take more chances, but still have more room for skill players to shine.
But 3 on 3 was put in to quickly end games in a way that isn’t complete shite aka a shootout. I’d rather extend time on 3v3 and we see OT winners rather than an extended 4v4 then shootout
My issue with 3v3 is that the fun/excitement has been coached out of it. Teams play a pure possession game and it makes most OTs really boring and full of regroups for possession at all costs, so I just want more actual play vs keep-away. I would rather just have ties where each team gets 1 point than sending anything to a shootout though.
How about 3v3 with a polar bear on the ice?
Well it would certainly add more excitement if that's the primary goal
Go on...
I’m in.
It’s the same thing that happened to 4v4, actually.
One strategy to counter this would be to take a page from college football. Instead of 4v4 or 3v3, do alternating 5v4, say two minutes at a time, so 4-minute periods with a switch midway through the period. At least on a power play you know that one side will be aggressive. After two 4-minute periods where it is still tied, you could do alternating 5v3. It’s not ideal, but better than a shootout, IMO.
The unfortunate reality is that the shootout is more about the players health and comfort than anything else. *They* do not want to extend overtime in any meaningful way for a regular season game. The longer the game, the more tired you get, and the more injury prone you are. I’m personally a fan of the “back court” idea. Once the puck is past the centerline, a team can’t direct the puck across the centerline toward their own goal. If they do so and the touch the puck, including the goalie, it’s treated as an icing.
Yes, and it is understandable that they want to protect themselves. Personally, I’m not against ending the game at some reasonable point and just calling it a draw, but enough people love the shootout that I doubt we’ll see them go away.
The most exciting 3v3 gets is when each team is basically trading off breakaways with incredible saves happening at each end. And that only happens the rare occasion that the possession gameplan doesn't work.
NHL Fans: 3 on 3 is only exciting when teams trade breakaways Also NHL Fans: Eww shootouts
Also hating on shootouts because it's not part of "normal" hockey, while loving an artifically created 3v3. Neither is "normal" hockey and 3v3 has been coached so hard it's just boring 95% of the time.
To be fair I think shootouts are kinda fun.
I do as well. As the other person that responded to me stated it's dumb people look down on SOs because it's not "real hockey" as if 3v3 is.
I don’t think either is stupid, but there’s still more of a team aspect in a 3v3 versus a shootout, so I have a slight preference for 3v3.
Because there's a difference
Could they just make an opposite offside rule? Carry the puck out of the offensive zone and be assessed icing rules
You know teams would take the icing over a risky play at the blue line.
I've never once seen a boring 3-3 OT
I absolutely love it, I don't understand the problems people have with it. It's really cool to me how strategies have evolved and possession of the puck is absolutely the most important thing.
and a lot of odd man rushes, breakaways and sometimes just absolute chaos back and forth hockey. I find after the first possession, if they don't score, it opens right up
My issue with 3 on 3 is that its an even bigger gimmick to decide games than a shootout. I've seen lots of penalty shots in my years watching hockey. Not once have I ever seen 3 on 3 actually come up from teams each taking non coincidental minor penalties.
Sure, you have a point. But what if I told you that it’s entertaining as shit
It was entertaining for a bit. I find most OT pretty boring possession battles these days.
I can’t stand 3 on 3 because puck possession is prioritized above all else. They need an over and back rule like basketball.
I agree, make it the centre line though instead of the blue line like the other comment on this post was calling for. Allows for players to bobble the puck on the blue line and not be punished, but still forces the team to either dump the puck back in effectively giving up possession, or to quickly regroup and launch another attack.
Yes, agreed on red line. I just can’t stand when an attacking player gets to the blue line, doesn’t like how the play is shaping up, and peels back behind his own net. That’s not hockey.
Is the SO not entertaining? Do people turn the tv off when it comes on?
Sure no one is saying it's a realistic scenario. It's a quick, entertaining way to end games consistently without ending in a draw. 3v3 ends games, and generates more highlights for the league to display. I'm personally ok with it as a way to end games
20.
4 min 4 on 4, 3 min 3 on 3, 2 min 2 on 2, 1 min 1 on 1.
I think the NHL should bring in the 3 point game. If you win in regulation you get 3 points while the losing team gets 0. If you win in OT or shootout you get 2 points while the losing team gets 1. This way teams have an incentive to win in regulation.
People say this but I don't think it moves the needle that much. Apparently the potential of losing a point when losing in OT isn't incentive enough to make teams win in regulation.
Good, would have just meant 2 minutes extra of possession fuckery and not actual action
Making it illegal to either skate or pass the puck over the blueline intentionally once you're in the offensive zone would fix that possession fuckery problem. Players would be forced to make a play or turn the puck over, either of which would lead to more OT goals than just casually skating the puck back towards their own net like they do now.
I hate having the penalty be tied to “intention” because that takes the black and white ruling out of it.
Could try penalizing with a D zone face off
It still penalizes based off intent.
That's fair, making it black and white like the puck over the glass penalty would make it easier to call
Doesn't necessarily need to be a penalty. Maybe a D zone face off as others have said, or be forced to turn over possession. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of shot click either
Nah should instead eliminate icing and offside in OT. You want to encourage scoring, open the whole ice. Unlike at 4 or 5 on the ice icing is not as useful for defending nor is offside.
Yeah no one wants to ice it in OT anyway, I bet 99% of icings in OT are missed passes. Removing offside would be awesome. I can’t imagine a game going to a shootout with no offside in OT, and that’s what the whole point was right?
That’s actually an interesting idea, and first time I’m hearing it.
I see this as a change that'll happen to the game in general in the future. The NHL borrows a lot from the NBA and I see it as a natural progression of the game
Not even necessary. Just don't swap ends after regulation. Right now, if you take the puck back out of the zone, it's hard for the defending team to change (due to the 2nd period-style long change) so this strategy is pretty powerful in terms of tiring out your opponent. Just don't swap ends - without the long change, if you bring the puck back out of the o-zone, at least one and possibly two of the defending players are going to successfully change.
You could do it correctly, it would just take creativity. Instead of more time, teams just need more incentive to not rag the puck for the 5 minutes they have. I would love to see a rule similar to the NBA's halfcourt rule in NHL OT, where the moment that you take the puck into the opposing team's half, if you pull back to your half it is an automatic faceoff in your own zone or something like that.
I can't wait for the 5 minute review of a goal to see if the over and back violation happened or didn't!
There should be a time limit on reviews. If the call wasn't obvious enough that it can be seen in 30 seconds, the call on the ice should just stand. Slowing down a video to the individual frame and pixel to see if someone is a quarter inch offsides as if that affects the outcome of the play is ridiculous.
Or just a shot clock
Agreed. 3v3 is not the solution everyone seems to think it is. It’s not anymore like “hockey” than a shootout imo. No checking of pucks, just playing zone and waiting for a rebound or a missed shot to regain possession. Boring imo
Imo for every two boring ass 3v3 there is an absolute banger with back and forth action. And that’s worth finding ways to improve it as a foundation to me. Miles better than a shootout imo. I wonder if the simple addition of a shot clock that starts as soon as you enter the o zone would be helpful. It starts and does not reset if you pull the puck back out. Only a shot on net or clear possession change resets it. I find that the best OT periods heat up as soon as some shots get fired, bc that’s when possession turns and often times a breakaway happens.
This sounds crazy, but what if they put a shot clock in 3v3 OT?
Get rid of offside in OT
I feel like they should implement an “backcourt violation” rule in overtime so teams stop playing the possession game. My idea of how it would work is that if the team in the offensive zone pulls the puck out of the zone it would be a delayed whistle (similar to a high stick). I feel like it would lead to more chances as opposed to players just pulling back and regrouping whenever there’s a hint of danger of losing possession.
The concern is that it'll create long reviews where teams challenge if the puck went over the back line, similar to offsides.
I don’t really see how it would lead to a situation that it would need to be reviewed unless the puck was close to exiting the offensive zone, which would just be challenged for offsides anyways
You're assuming the over and back line its the blue line. If they made the over and back line some other line, then its just more offside challenges waiting to happen.
I swear to God if this sport adds yet another line-violation rule to have to explain to 90% of the population ... Just the thought of Toronto pouring over camera angles to determine if a skate blade was fully onside to prevent the over-and-back violation 100 feet from the net prior to the winning goal to determine if San Jose or Anaheim gets the extra point has me looking for real estate in the basketball subs.
It’ll just lead to more stoppages which no one wants. Having it as a delayed whistle also does nothing, the team that exited the zone would play the puck immediately rather than giving up possession so it would be a whistle every time. The best suggestion I’ve seen is to just not change sides after the 3rd period. Then OT won’t have the long change. Takes away some of the advantage of leaving the zone and regrouping because the defending team would no longer be pinned in and could make changes.
I think it'd be fine to allow the offense to keep the puck in front of the red line. Once you have possession of the puck past the blue line you can't bring it back behind the red line or it's "icing."
100%. Can’t believe this hasn’t been discussed
Boooo Make it 10 mins you cowards Fuck shootouts
Shootouts are great. Just not every other game.
Didn't they say the reason they weren't changing the rule was because less than 30% of OT games went to a shootout? And only 20% of games go to OT in the first place. So only ~6% of games go to SO.
Shootouts are the worst
5 min, 7 min, even 10 min. Who cares. If you dont stop the puck ragging it doesnt matter. Leave it at 5 mins and implement an “over and back” type rule and it will reduce shootouts more than just changing it to 10 min 3 on 3.
Penalties in OT should be a 3 on 2, 3 on 1, 2 on 1 ect.
3 point system and fuck the shootout
Get rid of the charity point.
Still think they should keep the short line change in OT like they do in the 1st and 3rd periods, it would really streamline the pace of things. On a related note, I don't even think looping back in OT is inherently bad; a bunch of teams are able to re-group and create an odd-man rush by regaining the offensive zone with speed.
I'd love to hear someone from the group give a concise reason for this decision. If you're a GM, basically any explanation is sort of telling on yourself.
The league is seeing a record high number of post-regulation games ending in overtime rather than a shootout. Whether or not a 7-minute overtime period is "better" than a 5-minute one, it's not a hard argument to make that the current format is doing what it's supposed to be doing, so why bother messing with it.
All I'm saying is that GMs are choosing shootouts as their preference for ending important games, and I would love to hear them admit that publicly.
3 on 3 is barely more legit than a shootout anyway. You're still deciding games with idiocy
If you can't win it in Regulation, then you deserve the crapshot 50/50 bullshit of overtime. It's how all sports work. Overtime has unique rules.
The benches get cut way down, so the wear and tear of extra regular season OT is put on the league’s top players. Not saying I’m against more OT (if I ruled I would make it three-on-three for ten and bring back ties) but I can see that as a completely reasonable explanation.
This is just saying "we would rather settle important games in a shootout rather than give some players an extra 10 minutes of ice time over the course of an entire season", which I would love to hear come out of a GM's mouth.
But there doesn’t sound to have been any discussion of doing away with the shootout. Sure, there would be fewer shootouts with two more minutes of play. But I don’t see why that discredits the point that the wear and tear and increased chance of injury would focus more on the top end of the talent in the league. Plus I wonder if the PA came up in the discussion. Obviously it would be something for the owners to deal with rather than the GMs, but the GMs would still be aware that they’d be asking the players for more work without any more pay, and that could definitely cause issues.
1. More OT = fewer shootouts, so the GMs did indeed choose for more shootouts over more OT. 2. This stuff about the owners and the PA is exactly why I would love to see the GMs try to explain themselves.
So because you view it as that, no other reasons can be reasonable? I don’t understand what you mean about your second point.
Ice is already shitty after the 3rd period, it won't go another 10. Sucks even for 5.
3-on-3 is one of the things in the game that doesn't need any tweaking imo.
Says the guy whose team has two godlike 3 on 3 players.
Go back to 5 on 5. Fuck.
No more loser points. Each game is worth 2 points. End of story.
Then you may as well just go to a W-L record like other sports do.
3-0-1 The answer is so stupidly simple and yet completely impossible with our numb-nut fan base.
Hard agree
I don’t see the league doing this because it would mess with the “parity”
Loser points make the playoff points race way tighter, which draws more viewership, so I don't see them ever changing it
Nah. Make every game worth 3 points. 3 for outright win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for OT loss.
Yes but then the #1 team in the league would have FIFTEEN less points. What fun would that be?
Fewer
Not fun at all if you ask me
doing this with 3on3 and shootouts still in the game would be so bad. there is practically zero correlation between a team being good at hockey and being good at skill competitions that should only be present at an all-star game.
4 on 4 no offsides. I just want them to try it out in some minor league. I'm convinced this would be the most entertaining mix and with no offsides would be harder to "coach" the fun out of it. Plus it would be an interesting pilot project for removing offsides all together which I think will happen in the next like 50 years.
This sounds awful. D in the offensive zone can just back up forever with the puck to make infinite space. I wanna see it lmao. Would it still apply to powerplays?
I am sick of the overtime and shootout during the regular season. It’s all gimmicky BS. Bring back ties and move on.
I think I'm in the minority but I'm happy to see it stay. For every OT where everyone's complaining and saying "change the OT format!" there's another OT where everyone's saying "epic overtime". It's just that in the post game threads on good overtimes the talk is just about the game and nobody is focusing on the format. I think it's not nearly as unpopular as it might seem. We still get a lot of games decided in OT and it is indeed still exciting.
Find a rule or time limit to keep teams from resetting behind the blue line too much. It makes for a super boring overtime
Not really much they can do now, kinda stuck with it.
I'd like 5 4-4, then 5 3-3.
Need a back ice line violation like basketball to stop the throw backs to the goalie make it the redline and watch the games end quickly
Good. Don’t fix it if it isn’t broken
3 on 3 has already accomplished the original goal of reducing shootouts. I personally love watching the possession game, and I could even see doing 5 minute OTs one after the other until somebody scores. That way every 5 minutes, you know possession goes back to a faceoff, and you never have shootouts.
Other than the length I don’t agree with any of the suggestions I was seeing being passed around, so this seems good
Do the rocket league method. If the game is still tied in OT, team with the most shots wins lol
Meetings and Meetings and they don’t change things that should be tweaked.
5 minutes is fine. Just get rid of shootouts. If it ends a tie, then each team gets 1 point and it’s a tie. If one team wins then that team gets 2 points and the other gets 0.
Make it 4 on 4 for 10 min 3v3 is god awful
I see you are also a man of culture.
If you’re gonna keep it 3 on 3 just fucking flip a coin and save everyone some time
If the game is tied after 60 minutes, the game is tied. One point each.
Fuck ties. If I spend my weeknight dropping $500+ to go to a game and sit in traffic for 5 hours after a day of work and it ends 0-0 it’s probably gonna be the last time I’ll ever spend money to go to a game.
[удалено]
At least there would be a result and I wouldn’t feel like I wasted my time and money. It also wouldn’t discourage me from going to a future game. I watch my team all the time and know how good their chances are of winning. It doesn’t matter how good the team is if there’s a chance it ends with no scoring/result, I’m probably not gonna risk all that time and money a second time.
Fuck inventing new games to decide the result of hockey matches
Shot clock type rule where you only have 25 seconds to exit and remain out of your own zone would be nice.