The pulling the goalie in OT rule
- Thread starter Ben Grimm
- Start date
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
I disagree with the rule. I also disagree with the rule in Uno that players aren't allowed to stack all the draw-4s on top to instantly win the game.
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 33,446
- 36,661
Yes.
I also agree that you should lose the point you obtained if all you do is circle back and regroup constantly making the overtime boring as f***.
I also agree that you should lose the point you obtained if all you do is circle back and regroup constantly making the overtime boring as f***.
PeE eL DuBoiS
Send ze caviar to mah chambers, peasant
- Mar 31, 2022
- 744
- 1,490
I agree with whatever benefits my team and disagree with any opinions or beliefs that are in contrast to my own.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I can't really wrap my head around this and find any justification. It's never made much sense to me. A team taking the extra risk to help speed up the end game (with the large probability of it ending with a loss) shouldn't be punished.
Djp
Registered User
It came out when they talked of going 4x4 skater rules because there was concern around the more offense first teams having a big advantage that they could win the open draw , pull g, then score.
Also as t the time there was concern of intentional penalties to create 4x4 which is why the rule change thsy made offsetting penalties still be 5x5.
Even more so when they went to 3x3 as nd concern on advantages with some teams.
It goes back to when they started 4x4 OT and how they change the rule on simultaneous minors not going to 4x4 and staying at 5x5.
coolboarder
Registered User
Scrap the 3 on 3 OT if teams are going for pulling the goalie. It ruins the game. Even if risk is losing the loser point.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
I already don't think teams should get points in games they lost.
Maple Leaf
VIP
- Sep 18, 2009
- 9,794
- 5,029
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Agree with the rule. It's a desperation move. Should have more of a consequence than "oh well, I guess we didn't get the 2nd point that were 50/50 to not get anyway".
Megustaelhockey
"I like hockey" in Spanish
- Apr 29, 2011
- 22,729
- 16,436
People are just surprised they didn't know the rule. Read the rule book.
This rule exists to prevent even more unhinged OT play than we already see.
This rule exists to prevent even more unhinged OT play than we already see.
Detroit did this against the Panthers and won a game many years ago. I forgot why, but they really needed the 2 points. That's how I found out about this rule. Just one of those little quirks about the game I guess.
El Travo
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
- Aug 11, 2015
- 14,729
- 18,617
I say keep it as is. I'd rather they implement a rule to prevent carrying the puck back into your own zone without being pressured to do so.
Keep it high-risk to pull the goalie. Under normal circumstances, you'd only pull the goalie when down a goal. If you fail to score or are scored against, you gain zero points. The risk of pulling the goalie in OT would be significantly less if you still got a point out of it.
Keep it high-risk to pull the goalie. Under normal circumstances, you'd only pull the goalie when down a goal. If you fail to score or are scored against, you gain zero points. The risk of pulling the goalie in OT would be significantly less if you still got a point out of it.
If you want half the overtime games to end in empty net goals yeah it's a great rule.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,677
- 11,230
I agree with the rule, because pulling the goalie is a great chance to have the puck end in your own net fairly easily.
Imagine getting whistled for the "boring as f***" penalty!
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,677
- 11,230
ucanthanzalthetruth
#CatsAreChamps
- Jul 13, 2013
- 28,570
- 34,275
The rule was instituted in 1999, 85% of people didn't know it existed until yesterday, and yesterday's game was the 3rd time it's been attempted and 1st time since 2003. Meanwhile we still don't know what goalie interference is. League has bigger fish to fry than this.
DownIsTheNewUp
Registered User
The league correctly foresaw that teams might see a competitive advantage in going 4v3 with empty net. Then you run into the awkward scenario that both might do it and they clearly wanted to avoid that. So the league smartly made it a much riskier proposition so only a team would do it if they really need the 2 points.
Ben Grimm
👃Smells like teen spirit
- Dec 10, 2007
- 25,064
- 6,257
We could just not give loser points, eliminate shootouts, and go back to the old game ends in a tie system.
Schennanigans
Registered User
Mike C
Registered User
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,728
From what I've gleamed together: the AHL put in place 4-on-4 OT in 1998 along with having the OTL [which it had off and on for several years prior] and the NHL studied it for a year. One of the things the league observed was that a few coaches would pull the goalie in OT to create a 5-on-4 advantage, knowing they had the single point locked up and 5-on-4 gave them a risk-free opportunity for victory. They also knew that if the opposition fired at the empty net from its side of the blue line and missed, it was icing and the attacking team could then press the 5-on-4 advantage even more. Since this could be exploited whenever a team gained control of the puck in OT and the extra man made it more likely to "hem in" the opposition, wear it down and lead to a win, the league wanted to discourage the "risk-free" aspect of it.
One thing that fell out from there: the rule that if you pull the goalie in OT, he cannot go back in net until the next whistle. That's because Roger Neilsen tried exploiting that loophole in a couple of preseason games, where if his team had the puck he'd pull the goalie for the extra attacker but once his team lost possession he'd immediately get a skater to the bench to get the goalie back on the ice and hopefully to the net to avoid losing the point if he had the goalie pulled and the opposition scored.
All that said, I was reading about the move to 4-on-4 and some of the complaints - it's gonna get crazy with all that room, someone's going to get hurt; teams might play 4 forwards, that would destroy the integrity of hockey; no one's going to play hockey for 60 minutes, they're just going to stand around and wait for OT - are just as hilarious now as I'm sure they were back then when people tried to pretend it was a real concern.
