GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

1
Amen. I for one hate the shootout. I want it gone entirely though.


http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/12489 ... y#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- When the American Hockey League implemented 3-on-3 as part of its overtime routine for this season, there were still NHL general managers who were skeptics. They saw it as gimmicky -- maybe not as bad as the shootout, but still not exactly hockey.

They wanted to see a season's worth of results, see if it would truly cut down on the number of shootouts, see if coaches would find loopholes that might expose it.

They've now had that opportunity, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive toward reducing shootouts.

Starting Monday in Boca Raton, the NHL's general managers begin their three-day annual spring meetings, and the momentum is greater than ever to bring 3-on-3 overtime in some form to the NHL.

The AHL has substantially reduced the number of games decided in the shootout.
"I get the sense in talking to a number of the [general managers] there is a real desire to have more games end without the shootout," said a Western Conference GM. "Now, we've got basically a year of data in the American league that shows the 3-on-3 has helped do that. Everyone will give a personal opinion of if they like it visually, but you can't argue that more games are ending in overtime."

Nope, that argument is dead. In data provided by the AHL, just 5.6 percent of games this season (through March 3) in the league have ended in the shootout, which is down dramatically from 15.6 percent last season. Of the games that remain tied after regulation, 18.6 percent are decided in overtime, compared to just 8.5 percent last season.

However, the AHL plays a seven-minute overtime session, starting at 4-on-4 until the first whistle after three minutes of play. At three minutes or less, it's 3-on-3 with more goals being scored in the final minute of overtime than any other minute of overtime.

The data is convincing, although there doesn't appear to be a big appetite in the NHL to make overtime longer than the current five minutes. When to cut down to 3-on-3 from 4-on-4 will be one of the debates the GMs hash out before moving forward on this rule change. The other challenge will be to make sure the NHLPA is on board with a change that could be more taxing on its membership.

"We're going to have a healthy discussion. We have more information available," Dallas Stars GM Jim Nill told ESPN.com. "I've watched it in the AHL, it's been exciting. I saw back-to-back games and it was unbelievable. There's so much that can happen. It's still hockey, it's hockey plays and it's hockey skills."

• Also on the agenda in Boca Raton will be the general managers' quest to expand instant replay, especially as it pertains to goalie interference.

Goalie interference currently isn't reviewable. One of the challenges is that it's a subjective penalty with plenty of gray area. There's a fear of slowing games down by introducing too many instances of replay, but GMs want to use technology to get calls right.

The war room in Toronto closely monitors every game, and some general managers would like to arm on-site officials with the opportunity to get a second look themselves.

"If you can have a tablet for the referees to look at, I think that would help," one GM said. "The referees for the most part get it right a large majority of the time. They would just like a little reassurance. They don't have to piece the whole crime back together -- I think it can be done fairly quickly."

• Also on the agenda is the hope to come up with a concrete emergency goalie plan and rule to prevent a repeat of the situation in Florida where the Panthers were scrambling to find a goalie to dress when Roberto Luongo and backup Al Montoya were injured.

• And the lack of competitive fire or any intensity whatsoever during the All-Star Game in Columbus concerned a few general managers, so there might be a brainstorming session to try to find a solution. GMs don't want to increase the risk of injury to their players, so it's hard to imagine anything drastic being done there.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

3
I really hate this idea.

Let's just set the puck on the center ice dot, make it a 1 on 1 OT with the goalies. They have to start in their crease. The whistle blows, first goalie to put it in the opponent's net wins.

We could have bears riding around on bicycles while this is all going on, some jugglers on the ice juggling things on fire, maybe pull a car out onto the ice and have 50 midgets jump out and run all over the place....

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

5
I would rather them change the goalie interference rules.

If the goalie comes out of his crease to play the puck he should be fair game. I can't stand seeing forwards have to jump around goalies who are intentionally getting in their way so they can either make a play without trouble or draw a penalty. Then increase the threshold of goalie interference. If you make contact in the crease its a penalty. That is of course unless you cannot avoid it due to an opposing player or the goalie initiates contact when not playing the puck.

I'm not sure how I feel on the OT thing I'd like to see more goals being scored in OT but I also do like the occasional shoot out.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

6
siebe41 wrote:I would rather them change the goalie interference rules.

If the goalie comes out of his crease to play the puck he should be fair game. I can't stand seeing forwards have to jump around goalies who are intentionally getting in their way so they can either make a play without trouble or draw a penalty. Then increase the threshold of goalie interference. If you make contact in the crease its a penalty. That is of course unless you cannot avoid it due to an opposing player or the goalie initiates contact when not playing the puck.

I'm not sure how I feel on the OT thing I'd like to see more goals being scored in OT but I also do like the occasional shoot out.
I completely agree with all of that.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

7
I will stand by what I have always said; make every game worth 3 points. Change OT to 10 minutes of 5 on 5. If someone wins in regulation or OT (you know, still playing hockey) then the winner gets 3 points and the loser gets a lovely parting gift. If it goes to a shoot out, then it's 2 points for winning the skills competition and one point for losing the skills competition. Every game is now worth the same number of points.

To me the points are just a number to help determine who gets in the playoffs and who doesn't. I don't care if it takes 110 points just to make the playoffs and 150 to win the President's Trophy. Points are just numbers. A shoot out should not be an important part of the game. If you have to eliminate ties, then do it right. None of this half ass solution of some games being worth 2 points and some being worth 3 points. This encourages winning a hockey game and eliminates the need for the stupid ROW category as well.

The only other option I would be happy with is getting rid of the shoot out.

Sorry, but I'm pretty cut and dry on this one.
2018-2019 Stanley Cup Champion St. Louis Blues. And I was alive to see it happen!

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

8
Lefley 25 wrote:It is gimmicky but I would prefer it to the shootouts.
Yeah I hate the shootouts too. I'd rather see the point system change to reward a regulation win over an OT or shootout win. Seems that would cut down on the number or regulation ties and help matters. As it stands, in probably 80% of the games played both teams go into the third period with a mindset to try to at least get the loser point. Play conservative, keep shifts short, dump and change, just chip pucks out....if you catch a lucky break and get a scoring chance great, if not then just be safe. When both teams are doing that it sucks. And is so commonplace now people don't even pay it any attention.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

9
stlblues1226 wrote:I will stand by what I have always said; make every game worth 3 points.
That is what the Olympics does correct?

I see no reason why this hasn't been implemented yet. It's the logical solution.
Qapod The Mortician wrote:
siebe41 wrote:I would rather them change the goalie interference rules.

If the goalie comes out of his crease to play the puck he should be fair game. I can't stand seeing forwards have to jump around goalies who are intentionally getting in their way so they can either make a play without trouble or draw a penalty. Then increase the threshold of goalie interference. If you make contact in the crease its a penalty. That is of course unless you cannot avoid it due to an opposing player or the goalie initiates contact when not playing the puck.

I'm not sure how I feel on the OT thing I'd like to see more goals being scored in OT but I also do like the occasional shoot out.
I completely agree with all of that.
Makes 2 of us! I'd also be ok in that case of them playing the puck outside the trapezoid behind the net, but they have to realize they could get drilled if they do.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

10
stlblues1226 wrote:I will stand by what I have always said; make every game worth 3 points. Change OT to 10 minutes of 5 on 5. If someone wins in regulation or OT (you know, still playing hockey) then the winner gets 3 points and the loser gets a lovely parting gift. If it goes to a shoot out, then it's 2 points for winning the skills competition and one point for losing the skills competition. Every game is now worth the same number of points.
I agree with most of this, but I still think that there is room for the "loser point" under the 3 point system. Win in regulation gets you three, in OT the winner gets 2 and the loser gets 1. The biggest thing being overlooked in the entire equation is that so many close games go to OT because there is no incentive to win in regulation. Getting the game to OT is "safe" because you automatically bank a point, but you can still get the full 2 points. If you lose the opportunity to get the full 3 points even if you win, I think you would find significantly more close games decided in regulation.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

13
MissouriMook wrote:
stlblues1226 wrote:I will stand by what I have always said; make every game worth 3 points. Change OT to 10 minutes of 5 on 5. If someone wins in regulation or OT (you know, still playing hockey) then the winner gets 3 points and the loser gets a lovely parting gift. If it goes to a shoot out, then it's 2 points for winning the skills competition and one point for losing the skills competition. Every game is now worth the same number of points.
I agree with most of this, but I still think that there is room for the "loser point" under the 3 point system. Win in regulation gets you three, in OT the winner gets 2 and the loser gets 1. The biggest thing being overlooked in the entire equation is that so many close games go to OT because there is no incentive to win in regulation. Getting the game to OT is "safe" because you automatically bank a point, but you can still get the full 2 points. If you lose the opportunity to get the full 3 points even if you win, I think you would find significantly more close games decided in regulation.
Just so that I understand what you are saying, you want OT and shoot out wins to be 2 pts for the win and 1 for the loss? If that's the case, why not just eliminate OT and go straight to the shoot out? I'm not saying my idea is perfect, but since it is mine, I think it's a pretty damn good idea. 8-)

I understand your point, but I think putting OT back to 5 on 5 and making it 10 minutes and giving the loser no points will also be an incentive as well.

What about this; regulation 3 pts for a win 0 pts for a loss. In OT 2 pts for a win and 1 pt for a loss. In a shoot out, 2 pts for a win and 0 pts for a loss. We're back to some games being worth 2 points and some worth 3 but at least you are rewarded for winning a hockey game and punished for going to a skills competition. That would also give teams an incentive to win a hockey game because if it goes to a shoot out, one team will lose the loser point. This might be my new favorite idea. It's quickly growing on me.
2018-2019 Stanley Cup Champion St. Louis Blues. And I was alive to see it happen!

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

14
stlblues1226 wrote:Just so that I understand what you are saying, you want OT and shoot out wins to be 2 pts for the win and 1 for the loss? If that's the case, why not just eliminate OT and go straight to the shoot out? I'm not saying my idea is perfect, but since it is mine, I think it's a pretty damn good idea. 8-)

I understand your point, but I think putting OT back to 5 on 5 and making it 10 minutes and giving the loser no points will also be an incentive as well.
I left out the very important part that I would prefer to keep 4v4 OT but make it unlimited and completely eliminate the shootout.
stlblues1226 wrote:What about this; regulation 3 pts for a win 0 pts for a loss. In OT 2 pts for a win and 1 pt for a loss. In a shoot out, 2 pts for a win and 0 pts for a loss. We're back to some games being worth 2 points and some worth 3 but at least you are rewarded for winning a hockey game and punished for going to a skills competition. That would also give teams an incentive to win a hockey game because if it goes to a shoot out, one team will lose the loser point. This might be my new favorite idea. It's quickly growing on me.
I could live with that, but I think I would prefer 10 minutes of OT at 4v4, no shootout, and a tie resulting in each team getting only one point. As much as I hate that today some games are worth 3 points while others are only worth 2 (because it is skewed unfairly against teams who TCB in regulation) I would feel better about an inconsistency in the number of points if it punished the teams fighting for a tie rather than the teams who win in regulation.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

15
Hockey is a TEAM GAME! Go back to ties in regular season games - No OT, No Shootout! 3 on 3 is ridiculous!

If we absolutely must have OT, Still no shootout, make 10-minute OT, 5 on 5, and if not decided after 10 minutes, it ends in a tie. Regulation winner gets 3 points, OT winner 2, OT loser 1 point.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

16
I do like the comprimise version.

3 point games, still have shootouts.

This makes all games worth the same points. This creates incentive to win in regulation (look at colorado right now with 9 shootout wins and 11 ot losses. That is 20 OT games at least for them). This allows shootouts to occur still, but likely more rarely, making them more exciting when they do.

The league wants endings, the regular season games can't go on forever, the shootout novelty does show well on league highlights and is exciting for your average fan, especially during the regular season.

I feel the real reason the league won't do it, is because it seems to keep the races closer, or at least look closer, later into the year. Obviously that is good for the league's bottom line.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

17
stlblues1226 wrote: what about this; regulation 3 pts for a win 0 pts for a loss. In OT 2 pts for a win and 1 pt for a loss. In a shoot out, 2 pts for a win and 0 pts for a loss. We're back to some games being worth 2 points and some worth 3 but at least you are rewarded for winning a hockey game and punished for going to a skills competition. That would also give teams an incentive to win a hockey game because if it goes to a shoot out, one team will lose the loser point. This might be my new favorite idea. It's quickly growing on me.
I like this idea. Alot.

Keep the gimmicky shootout to keep gary buttplug happy but eliminate the desire for teams to WANT to go to it
Now now, the Canadian Government has apologized for Bryan Adams on SEVERAL occasions!

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

18
siebe41 wrote:
stlblues1226 wrote:I will stand by what I have always said; make every game worth 3 points.
That is what the Olympics does correct?

I see no reason why this hasn't been implemented yet.
you mean again?
siebe41 wrote:
Qapod The Mortician wrote:
siebe41 wrote:I would rather them change the goalie interference rules.

If the goalie comes out of his crease to play the puck he should be fair game. I can't stand seeing forwards have to jump around goalies who are intentionally getting in their way so they can either make a play without trouble or draw a penalty. Then increase the threshold of goalie interference. If you make contact in the crease its a penalty. That is of course unless you cannot avoid it due to an opposing player or the goalie initiates contact when not playing the puck.

I'm not sure how I feel on the OT thing I'd like to see more goals being scored in OT but I also do like the occasional shoot out.
I completely agree with all of that.
Makes 2 of us! I'd also be ok in that case of them playing the puck outside the trapezoid behind the net, but they have to realize they could get drilled if they do.
yeah, goalie out of paint = fair game. absolutely.

shootouts are not going away i fear, they are here to stay. the casual fan may remember nothing from that thrilling game/OT but will absolutely remember moments from the shootouts and is probably still talking about TJ Sochi.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

19
Qapod The Mortician wrote:
Lefley 25 wrote:It is gimmicky but I would prefer it to the shootouts.
Yeah I hate the shootouts too. I'd rather see the point system change to reward a regulation win over an OT or shootout win. Seems that would cut down on the number or regulation ties and help matters. As it stands, in probably 80% of the games played both teams go into the third period with a mindset to try to at least get the loser point. Play conservative, keep shifts short, dump and change, just chip pucks out....if you catch a lucky break and get a scoring chance great, if not then just be safe. When both teams are doing that it sucks. And is so commonplace now people don't even pay it any attention.
I remember when the loser point was first instituted.

It was supposed to make OT more wild and carefree, because even if you lost, you still got a point.

It really shows the ineptitude of the NHL by toying with the OT rules like idiots over the years.

Growing up it was W-L-T.

Then it was W-L-T-OTL

Then it was W-L-SOL

Then it was W-L-SOL but with extra numbers on ROW.

This is fucking stupid.

You really wanna end ties?

Go Soccer rules.

3 points for a win.

1 point for a tie.

There won't be any need for OT, much less the shootout or bullshit 3 on 3.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

20
Robb_K wrote:Hockey is a TEAM GAME! Go back to ties in regular season games - No OT, No Shootout! 3 on 3 is ridiculous!

If we absolutely must have OT, Still no shootout, make 10-minute OT, 5 on 5, and if not decided after 10 minutes, it ends in a tie. Regulation winner gets 3 points, OT winner 2, OT loser 1 point.
I like this but I'd prefer play-off and regular season be the same game, kinda like the other major sports.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

21
I don't like shootouts but I don't like the idea of 3 on 3 either. At what point is it still hockey when you keep taking players away from each side?

The solution is simple and has been mentioned many times already in this thread - the 3 point system. It's the system pretty much every league in the world uses outside of North America.

3 pts for a regulation win
2 pts for an OT/SO win (OT stays 4 on 4 for 5 min)
1 pt for an OT/SO loss
0 pts for a regulation loss

BUT the NHL seems to love the false parity the current system produces so there appears to be absolutely no appetite to change from the current absolutely ridiculous sometimes 2, sometimes 3 pt system.

To me, the 3 on 3 OT idea is essentially putting a bandaid on a problem that needs a much bigger fix - going to the 3 pt system.

And I'll note that one of the main reasons that seems to get brought up to counter the 3 pt system is that we then couldn't compare current teams to teams of the past as the pt system would be different, that's already the case with the loser point system in place. It used to take 82-85 pts to make the playoffs; now it takes around 95 pts. Just change the damn system to the 3 pt system already!

Regarding goalies being fair game to be hit outside of the crease, that's never ever going to happen. Goalie equipment is designed to stop pucks, not take hits. Goalies would be massacred if all f a sudden they would be fair game to be hit. The Lucic cheap shot on Ryan Miller a few years ago would happen 2-3 times a game and teams would go through 4-5 goalies a year with all of the injuries. That's never going to happen.

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

24
STL fan in IA wrote: Regarding goalies being fair game to be hit outside of the crease, that's never ever going to happen. Goalie equipment is designed to stop pucks, not take hits. Goalies would be massacred if all f a sudden they would be fair game to be hit. The Lucic cheap shot on Ryan Miller a few years ago would happen 2-3 times a game and teams would go through 4-5 goalies a year with all of the injuries. That's never going to happen.
Exactly, so maybe goalies will stop impeding the progress of forwards because they know they can't be hit. Once they know a guy is going to level them maybe they get out of the way, which will open up more ice for forwards and create more scoring chances. I just can't stand the fact that forwards have to dance around them when they are obviously just getting i the way.
T.C. wrote: you mean again?

as far as I know the NHL hasn't had a 3 point system. They looked at one before the canceled season but it got rejected after the lockout

Re: GM's considering 3-on-3 in OT..

25
siebe41 wrote:
STL fan in IA wrote: Regarding goalies being fair game to be hit outside of the crease, that's never ever going to happen. Goalie equipment is designed to stop pucks, not take hits. Goalies would be massacred if all f a sudden they would be fair game to be hit. The Lucic cheap shot on Ryan Miller a few years ago would happen 2-3 times a game and teams would go through 4-5 goalies a year with all of the injuries. That's never going to happen.
Exactly, so maybe goalies will stop impeding the progress of forwards because they know they can't be hit. Once they know a guy is going to level them maybe they get out of the way, which will open up more ice for forwards and create more scoring chances. I just can't stand the fact that forwards have to dance around them when they are obviously just getting i the way.
Again, goalie equipment isn't designed to take hits. Also, with all of that bulky equipment on, they couldn't move nearly as quickly to avoid hits. They'd be sitting ducks. As soon as a goalie took a step outside of the crease, opposing players would be looking to nail him as soon as the puck came near him. It's never going to happen.

I also don't like how goalies can purposely get in the way but allowing them to be hit isn't the solution IMO. I personally don't see it as a big problem but if they really want to deal with the issue, then make a rule to where goalies will be called for interference for overly blatant attempts to block out opposing players...pretty much how overly blatant diving is called. It would be a subjective call at the hads of the refs.