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.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Should the overtime rules be changed?

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

I assume you mean regular season only for poll.
For regular season I’d keep the same or add a few minutes to it.
5 on 5 until a goal is scored has zero percent of ever happening I’d say.

 

[Devil Dancer]

The more the NHL tinkers the more I'm convinced there's no good solution.

I'm just happy we still have endless OT in the playoffs. Gary gets credit for protecting that one.

 

[Albatros]

One point each, no OT.

The 82 games are too much already, additionally having games go OT in regular season is completely unnecessary.

 

[BaseballCoach]

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?

Penalty in RS OT should = penalty shot

 

[Lshap]

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

The more the NHL tinkers the more I'm convinced there's no good solution.

I'm just happy we still have endless OT in the playoffs. Gary gets credit for protecting that one.

I agree with both of you.

I get the entertainment value of OT. I won't lie – it's fun to watch! But let's be honest... it ain't real hockey, so it bugs me to see the standings skewed by all those bonus points for winning a skills competition. Doesn't feel like a legitimate win to me.

 

[bobholly39]

Penalty in RS OT should = penalty shot

Don't know about that. There are specific rules and situations where a penalty shot is given, I don't see the need to change that.

What I dislike is the lack of logic with # of players on ice and penalties. If it's 3 on 3, and one goes to the penalty box, it becomes 3 on 2. And double penalty? 3 on 1.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

10 min 4v4. No winner its a draw 1 point each

 

[frisco]

Same except winner in OT/Shootout gets two points, the loser gets zero.

My Best-Carey

 

[Golden_Jet]

Same except winner in OT/Shootout gets two points, the loser gets zero.

My Best-Carey

Yes, yes and yes

 

[gritdash60]

Many people who wants a change seem to want a tie to be possible, which is weird to me since for me going to a game and not winning or losing would seem really weird IMO. Also the win 2 points, tie 1, lose 0 seems crazy talk to me.

Maybe im just used to the european version but i think the 3-2-1-0 way they do it in most of europe is the way. So 3p for regulation win, 2p for OT or shootout win, 1p for loss in either OT or shootout, 0p for loss. Question wasn't about the point distribution though, and im leaning towards either 10min 5v5 or 10min of 4v4 really, the current 3v3 is beyond boring at least with current rules.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Ya zero interest in ties, hated them as a season ticket holder, as did most STH.

 

[TT1]

they tried 4 on 4 for 5 mins and everyone complained about it being too boring (and teams were playing super defensive) so they changed it