GDT: GAME 63 | Red Wings @ Senators | Fabian vs the Octopus Edition | Mon Mar 10 2025, 7:30PM | TVAS, PRIME

[Relapsing]

So… entertaining game lol

Not the buzzer discussion though!

Seriously. An all time performance by Ullmark, Cozens getting on the board, Zetterlund looking scary dangerous, the Wings failing spectacularly, luck being on our side for a change, and ending the night in WC1, 3 pts ahead of the Rangers, 5 pts ahead of Mtl, Wings, and Bruins, and 6 pts up on the Islanders? So f***ing entertaining!

Only Columbus can touch us if we lose tonight, and we'd still be in a WC spot with a point on the Rangers and a game in hand.

 

[Masterplan]

Looking at video from the game last night, Raymond doesn't release the puck before the buzzer, so the new rule wouldn't have effected last night's result.

Further, how long do you think most shots take? At 80mph a puck shot from the blue line would take about 0.5s and shot from the slot 0.17s. The proposed rule change would effect a miniscule number of games, and as others have pointed out would lead to refs having to make judgement calls on the release point. No offense, but it's just a terrible idea.

 

[Micklebot]

Because the myriad of reasons for why we can't do it are:

• this is how it's always been done
• we don't have enough cameras pointed at the ice

The NHL, and every sports league for that matter, have made many rule changes over the years. We had the 2-line pass rule for 60 years in the NHL...why did we say "it's time to change this" instead of "this is how it's always been done"? We didn't have video review for the vast majority of the NHL's existence. Why did we say "it's time to change this" instead of "this is how it's always been done"? Has video review enhanced the fan experience or made games more entertaining? Does a lengthy stoppage while game officials determine the facts of a review create excitement for fans? Or is it one of those things that we learn to live with because ultimately it makes more sense than how we used to do it?

I've stated the actual reasons against it more than once now, but you keep coming back to something I never said (I don't think anyone has other than perhaps a general, why are we changing this sentiment), when you summarize with strawmen, it doesn't make your case stronger.

2-line pass rule was actually instituted for specific reasons, it aimed to stretch out the defense and create more offense. What exactly are we solving by shifting the buzzer beater from the goal line to the release of the stick? If you want more time in games so that we don't miss out on a potential scoring play, why isn't extending periods by 5 seconds the answer instead? That way you'd even get the opportunity for a rebound play, wow, even more iconic plays!

What makes more sense about what you are suggesting? You are literally asking for goals to be counted after the game is over, why, because basketball does it? There's no problem to be solved here...

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I'm going to join the chorus with my opinion that I think it would be incredibly stupid to move to that model. In basketball, the ball is in the air. It's a simple need to identify it released from the hands and that was it. There'd be too many variables in hockey and I don't like the idea of having it count say on a deflection because it was released in time, but not say an immediate rebound that gets tapped in doesn't count because it's not a continuation. Dumb idea imo and I say let basketball have it. It's a great game and it's something they can call their own and it obviously works there.

 

[starling]

Even by the iconic basketball rules it wouldn't have been a goal. The puck flies at 100mph, while the ball is slowly arching and bouncing on the rim. It's completely moot and would make a difference once in 10 years.

 

[Slippy]

Imagine Jordan's buzzer beater never counted because the ball wasn't in the hoop before the clock was 00s...

And yet there are many famous plays in the NFL where someone scores after the clock has run out. And there are many famous goals in soccer during added time, a completely arbitrary amount of time given after the official game time has ended. I'm offering an alternative that's crystal clear and can't be abused. The final scoring attempt needs to be made before the clock expires. It's not going to result in an avalanche of additional goals but it can change the tactics of late-game faceoffs, breakaways or odd-man rushes near the end of periods/games, etc.

This is bullshit and you know it. Players don't hear the buzzer and immediately stop playing, like a switch has been turned off. You saw it last night against Detroit. Every guy on the ice was still playing after the time had expired. Every single guy. Hell, most/all of them didn't hear the buzzer or see the time had expired.

Now the NHL can't figure out how to shoot the entire ice surface...

The only pitfall you're outlining is the archaic "this is how it's always been done" kind.

Added time is not "arbitrary", it is the accumulative amount of time that that needs to be added to ensure "PLAYING" for 45 minutes per half.

 

[Bileur]

Not sure why the rule needs to change. The puck must cross the line before the play is dead. Simple. We'd just have replays trying to determine when the puck left a guy's stick to figure it out.

What if a player shot it before the horn, but it deflects off another player or object after the horn and then goes in the net?

What if a player shoots it before the horn, it’s in a pileup under the goalie, defenders and attackers and everyone is just pitchforking the goalie trying to bang it in? Can’t really blow the play dead since we can’t really see the puck is stopped.

Scrums like that are what would happen at the end of every close game. Makes no sense.

Might as well start giving bonus points for number of goals scored during the warmup.

 

[Golden_Jet]

As opposed to hockey players who immediately stop playing at the exact moment there's 0s on the clock? Come on, you know that's bullshit.

What does that have to do with whether the NHL starts counting attempts before the buzzer or the puck fully crossing the line? There should be some outlines to the rule, obviously. Like the final attempt at the puck needs to happen before time runs out but once it's been sent towards the net it should still be live play until the puck is stopped or the play is dead, in all the same ways we currently have. Puck hits a guy and never makes it to the net? Play is dead. What if you had a player on a breakaway with 3 seconds left and they released the puck before the time expired but it went in after the game clock was 0? That's not a goal just because? The player stopped making an attempt to score before time expired. Why is the delineation in that scenario that the puck went in after time had expired as opposed to when the player stopped making the attempt to score?

I don't understand the point you're making. Are you saying the league doesn't have sufficient cameras around the rink to determine if the puck was released before or after the game clock expired? If that's the only issue, it seems like a pretty simple fix.

You’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist lol.

 

[Micklebot]

Added time is not "arbitrary", it is the accumulative amount of time that that needs to be added to ensure "PLAYING" for 45 minutes per half.

It's a rule they came to to solve the problem of "lost time" caused by running the clock during stoppages, hockey already solved that problem by stopping the clock during stoppages.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Even by the iconic basketball rules it wouldn't have been a goal. The puck flies at 100mph, while the ball is slowly arching and bouncing on the rim. It's completely moot and would make a difference once in 10 years.

View attachment 991484

Lol. Their celebration was hilarious. Like, I had zero doubt whatsoever, that the horn had gone. How could they actually believe that thing went in on time, especially the guy that shot it. Seemed more like they just wanted to will it in to reality.

 

[starling]

The only rule change that could be interesting is letting the game continue until the puck leaves the attacking zone. Could be something.

 

[starling]

Zub and Pinto diving head first to block the shot is pretty epic stuff. Especially knowing their injury history.

 

[Micklebot]

The only rule change that could be interesting is letting the game continue until the puck leaves the attacking zone. Could be something.

That makes a bit more sense though I'd argue it's a bit arbitrary to extend a game just because you have the puck in that end of the ice, there's no real problem being solved. I always liked the idea of you can't end a game during a PP, that way a penalty is worth the same in the first minute as it is in the dying seconds, you can't trip someone with a half second to go and save a goal without any consequence.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Zub and Pinto diving head first to block the shot is pretty epic stuff. Especially knowing their injury history.

View attachment 991495

Doug Glatt would be proud.

That makes a bit more sense though I'd argue it's a bit arbitrary to extend a game just because you have the puck in that end of the ice, there's no real problem being solved. I always liked the idea of you can't end a game during a PP, that way a penalty is worth the same in the first minute as it is in the dying seconds, you can't trip someone with a half second to go and save a goal without any consequence.

Ya I don't understand any push for change. Like the buzzer beaters in the NBA being iconic, I think "beating the clock" has a similar effect in the NHL. No need for change at all.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

If you want to change the rule, it should be changed that the game has to end on a whistle if the score is within 1. So in a scenario like last night if the clock runs to 0 it would still continue while the play is live until there is an offside, goalie holds the puck, offensive team takes a penalty, or a goal from either team.

If you want to up the stakes, you could add that the game cannot end on icing or a penalty.

If you want to encourage offensive play and goal scoring, that would be a good rule change. It might add an extra minute to a game but it would ensure that the ending is as exciting as possible.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I’m not gonna hate on highnore he has some good shifts. Whatever he was doing on that goal tho only he knows.

But the drop off from Gregor to highmore is large

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

Lol. Their celebration was hilarious. Like, I had zero doubt whatsoever, that the horn had gone. How could they actually believe that thing went in on time, especially the guy that shot it. Seemed more like they just wanted to will it in to reality.

I don't blame them for taking it with some of the calls that went their way.

Great finish.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

If you want to change the rule, it should be changed that the game has to end on a whistle if the score is within 1. So in a scenario like last night if the clock runs to 0 it would still continue while the play is live until there is an offside, goalie holds the puck, offensive team takes a penalty, or a goal from either team.

If you want to up the stakes, you could add that the game cannot end on icing or a penalty.

If you want to encourage offensive play and goal scoring, that would be a good rule change. It might add an extra minute to a game but it would ensure that the ending is as exciting as possible.

Feels gimmicky.

Maybe they should also sprint and wrestle for the puck to get opening possession like the XFL did.

I don't blame them for taking it with some of the calls that went their way.

Great finish.

I guess I just didn't understand why they went so nutso. Maybe it's different on the ice, but watching on TV, the game was very clearly over and no chance the puck beat the buzzer. Not even the shot beat the buzzer lol.

 

[NyQuil]

I’m not gonna hate on highnore he has some good shifts. Whatever he was doing on that goal tho only he knows.

But the drop off from Gregor to highmore is large

Highmore had a bad game. Everyone has them.

If they become a trend (Hello Travis Hamonic) then I start to get concerned.

 

[Emerica]

Doug Glatt would be proud.


Ya I don't understand any push for change. Like the buzzer beaters in the NBA being iconic, I think "beating the clock" has a similar effect in the NHL. No need for change at all.

So would Scott Sterling

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

Feels gimmicky.

Maybe they should also sprint and wrestle for the puck to get opening possession like the XFL did.

It doesn't change any mechanics of the game. It's just a time management thing to increase excitement.

It's nowhere near as gimmicky as other things that have been added like 3 on 3 OT, or even traditional things like penalty shots.

I think it would make the game more entertaining.

 

[NyQuil]

You’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist lol.

Instead of watching a single line with a perfectly oriented camera, we are going to have to use any number of cameras and angles to determine whether the puck left the surface of the stick in time.

 

[Micklebot]

I’m not gonna hate on highnore he has some good shifts. Whatever he was doing on that goal tho only he knows.

But the drop off from Gregor to highmore is large

Well, yeah, one's an NHL regular, the other is an AHL callup.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

So would Steve Sterling

Lol, nice save, but I'd be more impressed if he'd gotten up quickly.

It doesn't change any mechanics of the game. It's just a time management thing to increase excitement.

It's nowhere near as gimmicky as other things that have been added like 3 on 3 OT, or even traditional things like penalty shots.

I think it would make the game more entertaining.

Fair on the 3on3 and what not being gimmicky, but I still hate the idea proposed. Buzzer is all we need imo.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Ullmark hurt himself last night didn’t he