Overtime rule change

[gritdash60]

Should the overtime rules be changed?

Took the first vote, 5v5 until a goal is my opinion.

Click to read more...

 

[Coffee]

12 minute 4 on 4

If no one scores, settle with a tie.

penalty rules would remain the same , if teams gets a penalty the opposing teams gets a 5th player

 

[tabness]

5 on 5 for five minutes and no shootout so it can end in a tie

that or just end at regulation

win 2 points
lose 0 points
tie 1 point

just old school it NHL has been tweaking with overtime since the late nineties and it just always keeps sucking

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

10 min OT is too long

Also hate the shootout

4v4 for 5 minutes sounds fine to me. Honestly miss having ties.

 

[Else Ermine]

Keep it as it is and don't stress about the outcomes. It's a sideshow that gets the event done after the real game has finished.

 

[bobholly39]

The one change I'd make is to penalties.

If you're 3 on 3 and you get a penalty, why does it go 4 on 3 rather than 3 on 2?

 

[Zalos]

I'd just extend the 3 on 3 to ten minutes. Everything else stay the same.

There'd be a lot fewer shootouts.

 

[Machinehead]

3v3 until somebody scores.

 

[Crede777]

3v3 for 5 minutes like it currently is but add an over and back rule. The rule: If the puck crosses the blueline from the attacking zone into the neutral zone and was last touched by the attacking team, then the attacking team may not be the next team to touch the puck or else an icing is called against the attacking team. The resulting face-off will be in the attacking team's zone and the attacking team cannot change players.

The purpose of the rule change is to prevent teams from carrying or dumping the puck back out of the attacking zone just to maintain possession. Once you enter the attacking zone, you're more or less committed until the opposing team gets possession or clears the puck. This should hopefully lead to more chances in OT.