Toggle sidebar

Ville Husso suggest a change to 3 on 3 overtime

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
ijuka said:
Ville Husso suggests a change to overtime where the team that's on the offense couldn't bring the puck back past the red line anymore.

The reason is, current 3 on 3 overtime's very boring and overcoached. Whenever there's not a clear scoring opportunity, the team will just bring the puck out of the zone. As a result, even though the 3 on 3 overtime was supposed to add excitement, minutes can pass by without a single scoring chance or even a single shot on goal, as losing possession is such a big deal. This is completely different from intended, and the fun has been coached out of 3 on 3 hockey.

Husso's suggestion would fix that issue and force the team on the offense to commit, similar to basketball.



Source: Finnish news Ilta-Sanomat Suomen NHL-tähti ehdottaa merkittävää sääntömuutosta – ”Nyt se on vähän sellaista odottelua”
Click to expand...
3 on 3 is a gimmick. A flawed idea that never should have been implemented.

Now everyone has ideas to fix the flaws.

Just drop it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stive Morgan, Faterson and Howboutthempanthers
I feel like we've already hurt this before from others.
 
3v3 followed by the shootout is completely fine. You all whine about the NHL not marketing itself well enough but to bring back ties or some points system that is somehow more complex will only further alienate fans.

I feel like a lot of fans forget what it was like to shell out hundreds of dollars to watch their home team dog it on the second game of a back-to-back and scrape the game down to a slogfest just to secure a tie-point. I definitely don't miss the nights of shelling out that cash to see a 1-1 tie.

Watch a 3v3 / shootout with someone who doesn't entirely watch hockey and it is basically the only part of the game they pay attention to. 3v3/SOs may not be perfect but they do their job of bringing a conclusion to a game and are typically quite entertaining compared to the previous 60 minutes.

NHL got this format more right than wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and Ben White
I've said this for a few years now. Over and back call just like the NBA. I dont want the NHL to do anything else like the NBA but this one would get it right.

Watching guys have the puck in the offensive end, pull it out and skate back to their own zone to regroup is horrible. 3 on 3 was a lot better when it started because this wasnt a thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: Faterson, Sparty and Raccoon Jesus
It always amuses me when teams attempt this keepaway tactic vs McDavid and Drai before turning it over and immediately being made to look ridiculous.
 
PaulD said:
3 on 3 is a gimmick. A flawed idea that never should have been implemented.

Now everyone has ideas to fix the flaws.

Just drop it.
Click to expand...
Well, it's still reduced the frequency of shootouts to around half of what they were before.

This kind of a fix would make there be even fewer shootouts.
 
ijuka said:
Well, it's still reduced the frequency of shootouts to around half of what they were before.

This kind of a fix would make there be even fewer shootouts.
Click to expand...
Yea, but instead we have NHL Gimmick logic.

Lets tweak the 3 on 3 gimmick so we have less of the shoot out gimmick.

Just a thought. Not having a shoot out would create fewer shoot outs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frankiess and Howboutthempanthers
PaulD said:
Yea, but instead we have NHL Gimmick logic.

Lets tweak the 3 on 3 gimmick so we have less of the shoot out gimmick.

Just a thought. Not having a shoot out would create fewer shoot outs.
Click to expand...
Well I still think it's good that every match has a winner, although I'm not entirely against the idea of there being a draw if OT ends tied. I practically consider them ties anyway, when it comes to evaluating a hockey team.

I also think if USA is pushing sportsbooks hard, having every match have a winner is probably better for betting interest than having ties.
 
I watched some of that 3ICE league from the summer and some of the rules they had were not bad - gimmicky but not terrible. The red line thing was one of them but if you crossed back it was an automatic turnover. I'm not sure how you would do that in the NHL without a faceoff but maybe it's just a faceoff back in your end with no change (like icing). At least then it's an opportunity for a turnover. I feel like if it was a penalty it would have to be black and white as if it was subjective refs would just not call it for fear of deciding a game in OT - the typical game management nonsense we already see now.

3ICE rules:
www.3ice.com

3Ice Rules

The official rules of the inaugural 3Ice season. This is hockey.
www.3ice.com www.3ice.com
 
The Podium said:
I’d prefer games just end in ties
Click to expand...

Screw that. I'd rather they flip a puck and home team calls logo or logo-less than go to ties.

Husso's concept is pretty good. Removing icing would be another to force teams to play until tired to force plays.

A tired team wapping the puck down the ice and relinquishing possession trying to get enough time to change, only for the goalie to pass it right back for odd man rushes etc. might create more scoring chances. A team being a bit aggressive and missing a pass doesn't stop play. Both the opposition and defense have to chase the puck.
 
HabsWhiteKnightLOL said:
or they could simply put 3 points win in regular time win
and 2 points OT win and 0 for the losing team.
So teams would actually try in OT

Giving a point to the losing team is just horrendous. Some teams are okay with this because they are not trying to catchup.

Imagine its 2-2 and one team gotta remove their goalie because they need the regular wins. It would make too much sense for the NHL.
Click to expand...

The NHL has convinced the masses that ties no longer exist

Except they do. The game is a tie if tied after 60 mins. The OT/shootout is for a bonus point and a pseudo win that means nothing except in a tiebreaker situation

3-1-0 is the best system. No OT at all in the regular season. If a game is tied, both teams get a small penalty in the standings
 
3pt for Reg win, 2pt for OT win, 1pt SO win - nothing for a loss. Should be more of an incentive to try and score.
 
ijuka said:
Well I still think it's good that every match has a winner, although I'm not entirely against the idea of there being a draw if OT ends tied. I practically consider them ties anyway, when it comes to evaluating a hockey team.

I also think if USA is pushing sportsbooks hard, having every match have a winner is probably better for betting interest than having ties.
Click to expand...
Ties are not a problem for me. As you implied........A gimmick win IS a tie.
As far as betting goes - I would not have a problem betting for a tie.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Howboutthempanthers
dirtydanglez said:
3v3 is a farce just get rid of it.
Click to expand...

We can’t get rid of it, because nobody will accept ties anymore.

3v3 is better than 4v4, and the shootout is dogshit.

However, it’s regular season hockey and someone has to win. It’s a school night, and people need to go home.

It’s a good idea from Husso. You wouldn’t think a goalie would be suggesting ways to make 3v3 more difficult.
 
Regardless of whatever OT situation is agreed on, people that are Pro-Tie: Honestly would like to hear your reasoning. I don't see how ties benefit anything from an entertainment standpoint, which at the end of the day, that IS what professional hockey is supposed to be.

I personally really enjoy 3v3; especially over a shootout. 3v3 may be gimmicky, but it's hockey, and the games I've watched are pretty fast paced and back and forth. Much less of a gimmick than a shootout.

Teams should be incentivized to win. Whether an extra point or get rid of loser points all together. I think a 3 point system would work. All regulation games 3 points. 3v3 OT wins 2 points. OT Loss 0 (or 1, if you want to make each game worth 3). Gives teams much more incentive to win in regulation instead of playing to keep it tied.

My votes would be:
3 points win, 2 points OT win 1 point OT loss
or
2 points regulation or OT win, 0 points for loss of any kind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom