| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| dbc |
Posted - 07/11/2014 : 9:28:30 PM
A major rule change announced by the AHL on Thursday could one day have an impact on how the NHL game is played and how games are decided after 60 minutes. I cannot find out if this rule will be adopted by the ECHL but my guess is it will be.
Starting with the 2014-15 season, when an AHL game goes to overtime, seven sudden-death minutes will now be put on the clock, with teams playing 4-against-4 until the first whistle after three minutes of play. Teams will then play 3-against-3 for the duration of the overtime period.
If there is no winner after seven minutes of overtime, then the game will go to a shootout to determine a victor.
This is significant because it should help reduce the number of games that are decided in a shootout, leading to more results that aren’t based upon what is essentially a skills competition. I like the idea of less shoot outs but not sure I like the 3 on 3 part. Comments? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dbc |
Posted - 08/05/2014 : 7:18:55 PM
I have e-mailed the ECHL twice asking what they are going to do and had no answer. I really like the idea of a penalty during 3 on 3 resulting in getting a man back for a 4 on 3 rather than going to a 3 on 2. |
| cMan2KellyCup |
Posted - 08/05/2014 : 12:03:41 PM
Donnie's suggestion to have a 10 minute overtime is a great suggestion... it provides the best chance for a team to get two points on the ice... Or do like they do in the NFL and play one full overtime period and THEN a shootout... |
| Puckhead60 |
Posted - 08/05/2014 : 11:19:38 AM
I agree that the 3 on 3 is less than ideal, but maybe (just maybe!) they'll do something cool like if a penalty occurs during the 3 on 3, the team who did not cause the penalty will get a man back making it a 4 on 3 or possibly 5 on 3. That at least might be a cool twist. I agree that extending the OT time is perfectly fine though. It's more entertaining than a shootout, but I don't want to see the shootout go away, either. Ties are silly. |
| cycfan |
Posted - 07/16/2014 : 11:20:11 AM
Generally the NHL uses the AHL to test out rule changes before they implement them at the NHL level. Pretty sure they did it with the elimination of the two line pass, and the goalie trapezoid as well.
If memory serves, the ECHL only sees the rule change if the NHL decides to adopt it.
I for one, don't mind the shootout. It's not a skills competition, the penalty shot is part of the game. I do like Donnie's suggestion to go to a 10 min. OT and to penalize the losing team in the shootout if it goes that far...that would definitely make team's press in the OT to avoid ending up with zero points. I also like the idea of going to a three point system, right now there is too much incentive to play for a tie late in the game. |
| dbc |
Posted - 07/14/2014 : 2:57:21 PM
Thanks for the comments/suggestions. I think extending the OT is and excellent idea but 3 on 3 is awful.
My preference at this point would be to keep it 4 on 4 for the entire OT and extend it to ten minutes before a shoot out occurs. If they can cut the shootouts down to a small minimum like Donnie pointed out occurred in the WHA, it will be great. Playing with 3 on 3 sort of makes a mockery of the game. ( What happens if there is penalty? Do they play 3 on 2 ??) Four on four is part of the overall basic game now during regulation and happens fairly often. It is something the teams practice. I don't know how you practice 3 on 3 except to say skate fast and go where they aren't.
Given the ECHL will either adopt the 3 on 3 rule or they won't, my guess is they will as they are a minor league and prepping the players to go to the AHL. If successful then I would expect to see the NHL adopt it in 2015-16 |
| cMan2KellyCup |
Posted - 07/14/2014 : 2:38:20 PM
I dunno about that.... I like the OT/SO points format the way it is now, but at the same time I would like to see a 10 minute OT before that happens... people want to see games have a decisive winner on the ice and not on the obvious game of chance that a shootout provides... plus all those lines in the standings would make no sense to attempt...
2 points for a win, 1 for an RT is fine... but again I would love to see a way to definitively determine a winner on the ice |
| Donnie Hockey |
Posted - 07/13/2014 : 11:46:08 AM
The WHA used to play a 10-minute OT period which was enough time to decide most games. The Stingers had 15 ties in four seasons, an average of 3.75 per season. Most teams had a similar average in the league's history.
If teams played a 10-minute OT and the winning team received two points and the losing team one, and if tied after OT the winning team in the shootout got one point and the losing team none, you'd see more than 90 percent of the games being settled before a shootout. |
| elvis77 |
Posted - 07/12/2014 : 7:15:12 PM
Rather than screwing around with OT why not just put the whole thing to whole thing to bed and adopt soccer's 3pt system and just eliminate the shootout. Win in regulation, you get 3 points, lose you get nothing. Tied and going to OT each team gets a point. The team that wins in OT gets another point. No winner after OT, each team gets a point.
I get it, no one really likes the shootout to decide games, it's a "skills competition." yeah, yeah. If you think the shootout is a skills competition just wait until you you see 3 v 3, it will be ass much , if not more, of a skills comp as the shootout. The team with the more skilled players will always win. I'm not sure the same can be said for the shootout. Just look at the Olympics, TJ Oshie wouldn't be a top line player for any team in the NHL yet he can be a difference maker in a shootout.
|
| bags |
Posted - 07/11/2014 : 10:25:46 PM
If you think about it, only thing missing is two on two ! Shootout is in
a way one on one (shooter against goalie). Also would like only winning
team getting one point and loser none if it goes to the shootout. Extra
incentive to score while team playing |
