Shoot outs in Hockey

[YOUR Hero]

do you think they should have them. 3 periods, then one overtime period then a shoot out... or something like that.

[Yashamaga]

No

you can't have a team game like hockey be decided by an individual act like a shootout.

I would much rather have 20 min OTs

[YOUR Hero]

The world's most popular sport, a team game, soccer, can be decided by a shoot out.

[The Icon of Elisim]

I sort of agree with Yash, although the shoot out makes things exciting for fans, I don't like the idea of it coming down to which team has the better goalie and forwards

[YOUR Hero]

I say they should have a shoot out at the beginning of every game. Then if the game is tied after the first overtime, the earlier shoot out would count. That way you generate excitement and get the players fans into the game right away.

I love my idea.

[road doggy dogg]

Bad idea

I remember at last year's all-star game they were talking about it, and asking some of the players abuot it. I remember Kariya said something about how it would make the game too gimmicky or something, I agree with him

[MoRcHeEbA]

10 minute OT then a shoot-out that's what we do in my league and I like it... I do hate 4 on 4 OT hockey though. and as for it coming down to who has a better goalie or forwards... Someone is gonna score eventually they're trying to change it to make it more exciting and faster.

[BCWWF]

I like the idea of the shootout somewhere, but I can't decide where. In the regular season, I don't think its really neccessary to determine a winner, but in the post-season some of those like 3-OT games are crazy.

[Y2Ant]

What kind of shootout does hockey have? Like penalty shots?

The thing about soccer is that you have guys running around for 90 mins, then 30 mins in extra time (OT)

In hockey, you have guys skating around for 20-30 mins each, tops, with an extra intermission than soccer, and frequent line changes.

Football penalties are kicked straight from one place close up, hockey penalty shots are different :o

[YOUR Hero]

Bad idea

I remember at last year's all-star game they were talking about it, and asking some of the players abuot it. I remember Kariya said something about how it would make the game too gimmicky or something, I agree with him


Never do this again. Go against my word. Understand?!

Besides who cares what Kariya says anyway, he's a little shit that can't score in a shoot out to save his life.

[road doggy dogg]

Nah just saying, I personally wouldn't think it would be the best thing to do :rant: Of course, if they added it, I wouldn't be against it or anything like that.

And yeah, Kariya is a punk now. Damn Avalanche, good on him for having a shitty season :foc:

[The Icon of Elisim]

I like the idea of the shootout somewhere, but I can't decide where. In the regular season, I don't think its really neccessary to determine a winner, but in the post-season some of those like 3-OT games are crazy.

You can't be serious. There is no way that you can end an ot game in the playoffs with a shootout

[BCWWF]

I think it was last year there was a game in like 4 ot's. Sure its exciting, but that is playing two whole hockey games right in a row. Its a disadvantage to both teams physically.

[The Icon of Elisim]

Who cares what it does to the players, they get paid the cash to play so they should play.

Besides a playoff game should be decided by the game not through a gimmick. Would you have a dunk contest to end a tie basketball game? or a Homerun derby to end a baseball game.

A shootout cheapens the game, and you can't have that in the playoffs

[YOUR Hero]

playoffs no. Regular season yes. No more ties.

[CNM]

playoffs no. Regular season yes. No more ties.

:y:

[The Icon of Elisim]

playoffs no. Regular season yes. No more ties.

I could live with that but I'd extend the ot to 10 or 20 minutes so that we don't start seeing shoot outs nightly.

But if the shootout were to be brought in don't you think you may see some teams play really pussy hockey and then just build their team to be really good in a shoot out

[samichna]

Nah, it is a team game. Shootouts are stupid.

And to reply to Hero's comment, it is because soccer is also stupid.

[The Outlaw]

I love penalty shots :love:

But, ehh, I dunno about the whole thing. Maybe just in the reg. season? I dunno :$

[da_king]

<font color="#ccffcc">
don't really like the idea, still though the current system kinda screws things up i mean a single point for an OT loss kind of complicates how i look at the point standings but i'd prefer it and the 4 on 4 rather then shoot outs. i don't really care what they do in soccer.

</font>

[Y2Ant]

Maybe 4 on 4 in OT in the playoffs would work better, seeing as there would be a goal quicker. :o

Couple of questions though, are shootouts ever used in hockey and if so, when?

Also, what has to happen for a player to get a penalty shot, I know he has to be infringed by the last man when he's on a breakaway, but does it just have to be a trip or what :mad:

[The Icon of Elisim]

There are shootouts in international hockey games (I think its after the first ot), not in the NHL though

Penalty shots are usually awarded if a guy is taken down from behind on a break away

[The CyNick]

I love 4 on 4 overtime. In the middle of a long NHL season you get a lot of games that suck (especially with the defence first teams), so when you get to 4 on 4 its usually the most exciting hockey. So I wouldn't get rid of that, in fact I'd like to see 4 on 4 extended to 10 minutes. I think that would increase the number of decisions in overtime, because there are so many odd man rushes, that eventually goals will be scored.

However, if the game is still tied at that point, I see no problem with a shootout. Why? Because people find it exciting. The NHL is in deep trouble in the States and is struggling to maintain a footing on American television. With that in mind, I think the NHL should go out of their way to make the game more exciting to the viewing public.

Keep in mind, I dont think a playoff game should be decided by a shoot out, but I dont see a problem with it in the regular season.

In fact I think it would improve many of the games. One of the big problems with the NHL today is that there are too many crappy teams who can stay in games by using trap defences to shut down skilled teams. Even though its often a good strategy it makes for bad television, which in turn makes for bad ratings, which in truns makes for bad profits. If you have a shoot out looming and you're one of these unskilled teams, you probably dont want to go into a shootout against a team like Colorado or Ottawa. So, you'll be more likely to abondon the defence first strategy towards the end of the game, and in overtime to avoid the shootout. In all likelyhood that would expose most of these garbage teams, and allow the skilled teams to go further, which is better for the game.

[Heyman]

do you think they should have them. 3 periods, then one overtime period then a shoot out... or something like that.

YES!

I think that is EXACTLY what they should do. 3 periods, 1 OT, and then shoot-out!

Although this sounds extreme, I also think hockey should be played 4 on 4.......the whole 60 minutes (not just OT).

[Wengerland]

Soccer only has penalties in cup games,not during the main league season.

I guess penalties would be ok for hockey,because the games are much shorter than say,soccer,but don't you just watch a game which is a tie/draw and think that it's a fair result? I mean why is having ties a problem?

[MTR]

No shootouts. Nothing wrong with a tie during the regular season. Shootouts take away from the fact it is a team game. It comes down to individuals and one on one match ups.

Soccer does not do shootouts for the most part. MLS did where they player stared from a little farther back and had x number of seconds to shoot. Not your typical penalty shot. MLS got rid of that and became normal like the rest of the world. I think there are still a few leagues in Asia that do penalties after a golden goal OT.

Soccer does do penalties in international play in tournaments after OT. Not fond of that either but I see the need for it. The guys play for 90 minutes and then another 30 they really can't be expected to play more and still be able to function.

[road doggy dogg]

In fact I think it would improve many of the games. One of the big problems with the NHL today is that there are too many crappy teams who can stay in games by using trap defences to shut down skilled teams. Even though its often a good strategy it makes for bad television, which in turn makes for bad ratings, which in truns makes for bad profits. If you have a shoot out looming and you're one of these unskilled teams, you probably dont want to go into a shootout against a team like Colorado or Ottawa. So, you'll be more likely to abondon the defence first strategy towards the end of the game, and in overtime to avoid the shootout. In all likelyhood that would expose most of these garbage teams, and allow the skilled teams to go further, which is better for the game.

Philadelphia and New Jersey are far from "unskilled"

And you're trying to tell me that guys like Elias, Roenick, Gaborik, Sykora, etc, would suck in a shootout?

[The CyNick]

Philadelphia and New Jersey are far from "unskilled"

And you're trying to tell me that guys like Elias, Roenick, Gaborik, Sykora, etc, would suck in a shootout?


Well first, no, I never called those teams unskilled, that would be stupid.

What I'm talking about are teams like Anahiem, Minnesota, and a bunch of other teams that have very FEW stars, and only get wins (or ties) based on playing boring hockey. Dont get me wrong, Philly and Jersey play very boring hockey as well, but at least they have some talent.

Anything to make hockey more exciting would be better for business.

And you just took players from what 3 teams and made a lineup that both Colordao and Ottawa would kill in a shootout. So the point is, a team like Colorado that is built on skill would have a better chance against a team like Philly, who has some skill, but nearly the lever of teams like Colorado and Ottawa.

[The CyNick]

YES!

I think that is EXACTLY what they should do. 3 periods, 1 OT, and then shoot-out!

Although this sounds extreme, I also think hockey should be played 4 on 4.......the whole 60 minutes (not just OT).

I'm not against 4 on 4 for the whole game, or at least I'd like to see more testing of it done, say in the AHL.

However, after seeing 3/4 teams left in the Playoffs, I have renewed faith that game can be entertaining with 5 on 5 and no drastic rule changes. I think the best thing for hockey would be fore any of the teams left except Philly to win the Cup. Because then perhaps in the future teams will be built on speed and skill rather than being built around defensive systems that take the skill out of the game.

Another idea would be to make the nets slightly larger. Everyone has probably seen footage from back in the day, and goalies didn't cover up nearly the amount of the net as they do now. I understand goalies need to be protected with big equipment to avoid injury and to counter faster shots, but there's no reaosn why they couldn't increase the net size to go with the larger equipment. I'm not talking about putting in soccer nets, but a small increase probably wouldn't hurt. Again, the goalies would have nothing to complain about because they would still be protected, and the league would liekly benefit from increased scoring.

[BCWWF]

I say use Olympic sized rinks

[The CyNick]

I say use Olympic sized rinks

That might work, but there are plenty of boring internation games, so I'm not sure how effective that would be. Plus, they'd have to get rid of seats, which I'm pretty sure owners would be against.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Personally I think having ties is stupid

There should always be a winner and a loser of every game...I hate ties in every and all sports

[Y2C]

Shoot-outs should only be there for ties in Finals games.

[road doggy dogg]

What I'm talking about are teams like Anahiem, Minnesota, and a bunch of other teams that have very FEW stars, and only get wins (or ties) based on playing boring hockey. Dont get me wrong, Philly and Jersey play very boring hockey as well, but at least they have some talent.

Okay I'm not trying to say you're contradicting yourself here or anything, but WTF? Philly and New Jersey play a boring game. That's true. But "at least they have some talent" ? Anaheim has, let's see... Fedorov, Prospal, Sykora, Ozolinsh, and last year (when most people were probably watching them) Kariya and Oates. Carney isn't a star by any means, but he's a big hitter, which makes for entertaining hockey. So I don't see how a team like New Jersey, who has probably the same amount of talent, can be excluded from your statement because they do better every year or something. They're still just as boring as Minnesota or Anaheim or whatever team.


And you just took players from what 3 teams and made a lineup that both Colordao and Ottawa would kill in a shootout. So the point is, a team like Colorado that is built on skill would have a better chance against a team like Philly, who has some skill, but nearly the lever of teams like Colorado and Ottawa.

That's also kinda stupid there. I understand that Colorado and Ottawa are better teams and all, but the whole point of a shootout is that it's an individual going against the goalie. No team play there.

So let's say Anaheim was going against Colorado in a shootout. Colorado has:

Sakic
Tanguay
Forsberg
Selanne
Kariya
Hejduk

Anaheim has:

Fedorov
Prospal
Sykora
Rucchin
Niedermeyer
Ozolinsh

Forsberg's more of a playmaker than a goal-scorer, so he wouldn't be the best player for a shootout. Selanne's had an awful season, and isn't gonna be getting any younger. Tanguay's good, but nothing to wet yourself over. Kariya's been fighting the injury bug, but he can still be good. So Colorado still would have probably 3 good shots on a shootout. Giguere isn't a pushover by any means.

Now Anaheim... Fedorov still put up decent numbers on a less offensive-based team (comparing Anaheim to Detroit that is), Prospal the same. Rucchin's a pretty steady player, same with Neidermeyer, but again, nothing too special. So Anaheim probably has a good 3-4 shots as well, and Aebisher isn't the greatest goalie either (but like Giguere, certainly not a pushover)

So in a shootout, the two teams would be pretty much even, really. On paper, of course, which basically means nothing in the game, but it's 5 am so ho hum.

[road doggy dogg]

Shoot-outs should only be there for ties in Finals games.

God no. If anything, they should be in everything BUT finals (playoff) games.

I, as a player, would be quite pissed if my entire season were to lay on the shoulders of 5 players on my team, and could be gone because our star winger tripped at the top of the circle and missed his shot. The games are just too important for something like that to decide them.

[AareDub]

Shootouts would ruin playoff hockey. There nothing (in hockey) more exciting than watching a game reach a 4th OT at 3am in a game 7.

One of the biggest reasons I'm against them in regular season games is because I don't want to turn on NHL2Night on ESPN every night and see highlites of all the shootouts that took place that night. All the news/recap shows want to show the game winning goals, etc. Shootouts would cheapen those shows to nothing but shootout goals.

I'm all for extending the OT period in the regular season to 10 mins.

[91]

As it pertains to the arguement that footie uses shoot outs, and bear with me here because I'm not totally clued in on Hockey, instead choosing to know what I've picked up by watching it the past few weeks (and actually enjoying it too). With hockey, from what I've seen, it's not too likely that the teams will go forever without scoring whilst in footie it's perfectly conceivable that two teams could go hours without scoring depending on who's playing and so forth. Personally I was loving watching the OT games and as the old saying goes, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

[The CyNick]

Okay I'm not trying to say you're contradicting yourself here or anything, but WTF? Philly and New Jersey play a boring game. That's true. But "at least they have some talent" ? Anaheim has, let's see... Fedorov, Prospal, Sykora, Ozolinsh, and last year (when most people were probably watching them) Kariya and Oates. Carney isn't a star by any means, but he's a big hitter, which makes for entertaining hockey. So I don't see how a team like New Jersey, who has probably the same amount of talent, can be excluded from your statement because they do better every year or something. They're still just as boring as Minnesota or Anaheim or whatever team.




That's also kinda stupid there. I understand that Colorado and Ottawa are better teams and all, but the whole point of a shootout is that it's an individual going against the goalie. No team play there.

So let's say Anaheim was going against Colorado in a shootout. Colorado has:

Sakic
Tanguay
Forsberg
Selanne
Kariya
Hejduk

Anaheim has:

Fedorov
Prospal
Sykora
Rucchin
Niedermeyer
Ozolinsh

Forsberg's more of a playmaker than a goal-scorer, so he wouldn't be the best player for a shootout. Selanne's had an awful season, and isn't gonna be getting any younger. Tanguay's good, but nothing to wet yourself over. Kariya's been fighting the injury bug, but he can still be good. So Colorado still would have probably 3 good shots on a shootout. Giguere isn't a pushover by any means.

Now Anaheim... Fedorov still put up decent numbers on a less offensive-based team (comparing Anaheim to Detroit that is), Prospal the same. Rucchin's a pretty steady player, same with Neidermeyer, but again, nothing too special. So Anaheim probably has a good 3-4 shots as well, and Aebisher isn't the greatest goalie either (but like Giguere, certainly not a pushover)

So in a shootout, the two teams would be pretty much even, really. On paper, of course, which basically means nothing in the game, but it's 5 am so ho hum.


All I can say is that in a 5 on 5 shootout I would take Colorado everytime over Anahiem, and I think anyone who watches hockey would too. The only hope Anahiem would have is if Giguere stood on his head, which is possible, but like I said I'd still take Colorado everytime. And the fact that were debating this point, shows that there is interest in seeing a hootout between the two teams.

As for Jersey, I would say Fedorov is the most talented guy in temrs of scoring, but Jersey has a deeper roster in terms of talent, especially on D.

[road doggy dogg]

Okay you are either retarded, or just trying to be. You totally ignored my post because "Colorado is Colorado"

Jersey's deeper roster and defense isn't going to do shit for them in a shootout. Try and decide what standpoint you're trying to take.

[asphyXy]

<font color=969696>If you're going to have a shootout, get rid of overtime losses in the stats column. If you're tied at the end of overtime, then you get a point. The shootout would be to determine who gets the second point.

If not, just get rid of overtime losses. If you lose a game, you don't deserve a point. Period.</font>

[KleptoKlown]

First off, question why people want shootouts.

They're exciting, and they're very rare. The only time you really get to see them is allstar breaks, and international play.

Now ask yourself this...if you saw a shootout every other night, would you still think they were as exciting?

Use shootouts for overtime is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb

[The CyNick]

Okay you are either retarded, or just trying to be. You totally ignored my post because "Colorado is Colorado"

Jersey's deeper roster and defense isn't going to do shit for them in a shootout. Try and decide what standpoint you're trying to take.


Why are you being a jackass?

I'm not going to go through each guy and try to determine if they would score. I read your list, and its stupid, you cant take a guy like Forsberg and say he wouldn't be that great in a shootout. You've probably only seen Forsberg in maybe a few shootouts/penalty shots (if that) so you're opinion is baseless. Since they dont do it on a regular basis, the only way to predict the outcome is by talent. Hell for all we know Darcy Tucker could be a beast at Penalty Shots, but would you bet a lot of money that he is? Of course not. So in terms of scoring talent, Colorado is much deeper than Anahiem, anyone can see that (except you apparently).

In terms of the Jersey thing, now you're just being ignorant because you are mixing up two separate points. My point about Jersey being a somewhat deep has to do with them playing a full game, in comparision to teams like Minnesota. I never once said that Jersey would do well in a shootout, I was just pointing out that they are a deeper overall team than Minestoa and Anahiem (again its impossible to argue that point).

Next time try to get your facts right before you run your mouth.

[The CyNick]

{lepto]{lown']First off, question why people want shootouts.

They're exciting, and they're very rare. The only time you really get to see them is allstar breaks, and international play.

Now ask yourself this...if you saw a shootout every other night, would you still think they were as exciting?

Use shootouts for overtime is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb

Well if they used my idea, you'd have 10 minutes of overtime, which would increase the number of games that end in OT.

But yeah, you'd have a lot of shootouts, and its impossible to tell if people would get tired of it because it hasn't happened yet. I can see how it would be exciting almost everytime. I dont see how people could be bored by seeing say Iyla vs Luongo or Iginla vs Joseph, and so on.

And it wouldn't be every other night (unless you watch all the games), but I think the Leafs had something like 10 ties (thereabouts anyway), so that would be 1 out of 8 games ending in a shootout, so it would still be pretty special.

[road doggy dogg]

Why are you being a jackass?

I'm not going to go through each guy and try to determine if they would score. I read your list, and its stupid, you cant take a guy like Forsberg and say he wouldn't be that great in a shootout. You've probably only seen Forsberg in maybe a few shootouts/penalty shots (if that) so you're opinion is baseless. Since they dont do it on a regular basis, the only way to predict the outcome is by talent. Hell for all we know Darcy Tucker could be a beast at Penalty Shots, but would you bet a lot of money that he is? Of course not. So in terms of scoring talent, Colorado is much deeper than Anahiem, anyone can see that (except you apparently).

In terms of the Jersey thing, now you're just being ignorant because you are mixing up two separate points. My point about Jersey being a somewhat deep has to do with them playing a full game, in comparision to teams like Minnesota. I never once said that Jersey would do well in a shootout, I was just pointing out that they are a deeper overall team than Minestoa and Anahiem (again its impossible to argue that point).

Next time try to get your facts right before you run your mouth.

You are an idiot.

Your whole argument was that Colorado would kill anyone in a shootout because of the stars on their team. Then I pointed out that while they have a few good stars, they wouldn't exactly overwhelm a supposed less-talented team like Anaheim. Then you basically just say "No, Darcy Tucker is as good a player as Forsberg, so you suck"

Basically, you're an idiot. If you're going to try and argue your point, at least try and put out something valid that would make even someone like Yash believe it. All you've said was "Colorado and Ottawa would kill other teams in a shootout." You've given me nothing to believe that your point is true.

[MoRcHeEbA]

the toronto maple leafs would win every shoot out ever

[The CyNick]

You are an idiot.

Your whole argument was that Colorado would kill anyone in a shootout because of the stars on their team. Then I pointed out that while they have a few good stars, they wouldn't exactly overwhelm a supposed less-talented team like Anaheim. Then you basically just say "No, Darcy Tucker is as good a player as Forsberg, so you suck"

Basically, you're an idiot. If you're going to try and argue your point, at least try and put out something valid that would make even someone like Yash believe it. All you've said was "Colorado and Ottawa would kill other teams in a shootout." You've given me nothing to believe that your point is true.


Dumbass, its impossible to prove. The only way to judge is to see how guys have faired on penalty shots/shootous in the past. Everything is just speculation, and proves very little.

And once again you missed the point with the Tucker thing, which shows you cant read, which is sad in this day and age.

[The CyNick]

the toronto maple leafs would win every shoot out ever

now this guy I can agree with

[Adder]

Hockey used to be 3 forwards, 3 defensemen and the goalie. Then they removed a defenseman to open up the game. Granted that was a long time ago, but people who say altering the game is blasphemy seem to overlook things like this.

Hockey needs some sort of change.



They have been mulling over the idea of larger nets. (actually what it is is smaller goalposts at this point) Removing the redline is another. Whether it's one of these idea or whether it's shoot outs, 4 on 4 hockey for 10 minutes instead of 5, they should just get to doing something.

[da_king]

<font color="#ccffcc">
just heard that the NHLPA is going to file a grievance over plans to reduce the size goaltender pads :nono:, no doubt just politicking. anyways one idea i'd like to see them try out is have a floating blue line. atacking team gains the zone, defesive team has to get it past centre for the offside rule to kick in. i don't know what it is about the people that run the NHL but it seems like it takes them forever to do anything and usually it's something small and inconsequential or they don't follow through with it properly.

</font>

[Heyman]

QUESTION - Why not just completely eliminate off-sides?

Keep the 5 on 5, but just get rid of all off sides. No icing as well.

[Y2Ant]

They should just use the soccer offside, you have to have at least one D-man infront of you when you recieve a pass, no crossing the blue line bollocks :mad:

[Heyman]

They should just use the soccer offside, you have to have at least one D-man infront of you when you recieve a pass, no crossing the blue line bollocks :mad:

I'd compare hockey more to basketball than soccer (due to a more similar sized 'playing field').

Basketball has no offsides. Hence - the sport has great tempo.

[YOUR Hero]

Gotta have off sides. Drop the red line. In fact that was added from the original game anyways.

[The CyNick]

As far as the nets go, I dont see the problem with making them a little bigger. I understand why the NHLPA wants to prtect their goalies with larger equipment, so the way to fight that is increase the net size. Gaolies are still protected, but they cant cover as much of the net, which would increase scoring.

Too many people in hockey are afraid are real changes to try to improve the game. I'm as big of a hockey fan as there is, but I recognize its a business and a lot of people could care less about the game. They should be taking larger strides to make the game more exciting to get new viewers.

[MoRcHeEbA]

my league doesn't play with the red line, all it does really though is eliminate the trap style though... Nothing special. Makes the game quicker... Meh

[samichna]

cat fight

[Heyman]

Gotta have off sides. Drop the red line. In fact that was added from the original game anyways.

That would be a good solution, but I don't see WHY it's such a bad idea to completely eliminate offsides.

Eliminate offsides and icing, and it practically KILLS the trap.

[Heyman]

You are an idiot.

Your whole argument was that Colorado would kill anyone in a shootout because of the stars on their team. Then I pointed out that while they have a few good stars, they wouldn't exactly overwhelm a supposed less-talented team like Anaheim. Then you basically just say "No, Darcy Tucker is as good a player as Forsberg, so you suck"

Basically, you're an idiot. If you're going to try and argue your point, at least try and put out something valid that would make even someone like Yash believe it. All you've said was "Colorado and Ottawa would kill other teams in a shootout." You've given me nothing to believe that your point is true.


Road Doggy Dogg:

You calling The CyNick an idiot, is like Michael Jackson calling Brock Lesnar a "girly man".

You're a reasonably intelligent guy (I'll give you that), but The CyNick is MUCH more intelligent than you.

Re-read your dialogue with him, and you'll realize who the real "idiot" in this thread was.

[Y2C]

God no. If anything, they should be in everything BUT finals (playoff) games.

I, as a player, would be quite pissed if my entire season were to lay on the shoulders of 5 players on my team, and could be gone because our star winger tripped at the top of the circle and missed his shot. The games are just too important for something like that to decide them.

Then what would you suggest instead of a shoot-out to decide games? In finals games you must have a winner, so that one team advances and the other gets eliminated. In a best of 7 series, what if they were 3 wins each with 1 tie? You can't have 2 teams progress when there is only 1 spot available.

Finals matches are the only ones where there must be a winner & a loser. During the regular season if there's a tie then both teams get equal amount of points. There are no points in finals, as you're playing to get to the next round.

[The Icon of Elisim]

In playoff matches you have overtimes, generally sudden death

[da_king]

<font color="#ccffcc">

yeah keep playing till someone scores. play all night if they have to.
</font>

[Y2Ant]

I'd compare hockey more to basketball than soccer (due to a more similar sized 'playing field').

Basketball has no offsides. Hence - the sport has great tempo.
That would be true I guess. :o

I'd like to see a more exciting, offensive game (and I dunno what the scores used to be in the days of Gretsky) but I don't wanna see games end up like 10-9 every night, I like to see shutouts happen too.

[Y2Ant]

Gotta have off sides. Drop the red line. In fact that was added from the original game anyways.
The only thing the red line is used for is icing isn't it :o?

If so, then I agree with what you just said

[Y2Ant]

Oh yeah, no 2 line passes without a red line :y:

Could someone give me an explanation of the trap system :o

I'm guessing it's some sort of counterattack after the defence absorbs all the pressure, nick a goal or two and then play defensively or something?

[Heyman]

Just so everyone knows, I got the whole "no icing, no offsides" idea from my old Super Nintendo game (NHL 97').

:shifty:

[Y2Ant]

Fights should be like Blades of Steel on the NES, where only the loser of the fight goes to the bench. :cool:

[MoRcHeEbA]

Oh yeah, no 2 line passes without a red line :y:

Could someone give me an explanation of the trap system :o

I'm guessing it's some sort of counterattack after the defence absorbs all the pressure, nick a goal or two and then play defensively or something?

A two line pass is just a fancy word for offside :D

anyways the trap is basically a 1-2-2 forecheck a team that's on defense will send in one forechecker into the opositions zone, then leave there other two forwards at about the blue line and the two defense at about half way between the red and blue. the two forwards will basically lock the two wingers up without causing a interfernce call, so they're basically taken out of the play. Basically all it does though is cause alot of turnovers and makes the game slower.