Shoot outs in Hockey
 

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

playoffs no. Regular season yes. No more ties.

:y:

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

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

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

I love penalty shots :love:

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

<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>

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

<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>