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
I've said this before, but 3 on 3 doesn't even feel like hockey. 4 on 4 was the sweet spot where the game is still more or less the same, but with more open space. Apparently there wasn't enough 4 on 4 goals in OT for the NHL, so we're forced to watch this abomination now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Faterson
You can keep trying to plug holes into issues with overtime, but you'll just end up creating new holes.

Its been going on ever since overtime was introduced to regular season games.
 
sabresfan129103 said:
I've said this before, but 3 on 3 doesn't even feel like hockey. 4 on 4 was the sweet spot where the game is still more or less the same, but with more open space. Apparently there wasn't enough 4 on 4 goals in OT for the NHL, so we're forced to watch this abomination now.
Click to expand...

Honest question. Which would you find more gimmicky?

3v3 with existing rules or 4v4 with no icing and no offside?
 
4v4 OT for 5 min
If it ends, nobody gets an extra point and it's just a tie
But you can't have more than 4 skaters in OT (so no pulling goalie)
 
I hate ties.

4 vs. 4 for 5 minutes will likely resolve nothing 80% of the time.

Shoutouts are worse than 3 vs. 3.

3 vs. 3 is the best compromise but I agree with Husso’s solution which has actually been brought forward before. I think it was Brian Burke who was the first “hockey” guy to suggest it.
 
Darcy Tucker said:
Hypothetically anything can be whined about. Be better Husso. ⛑️
Click to expand...
It's about how boring it is for goalies to sit around with no shots for 3min or something. I doubt he would expect this change to increase his win rate...
 
If they really wanted games to end in OT, make it a 2 minute delay of game penalty for bringing the puck unforced back over the blue.
This would negate all the times where they cross the blue line only to retreat back into the neutral zone to reset.

Or they could take away offsides/icing in OT, it'd be a cherry pickers delight.
 
Tiresome to have this conversation over and over again.

1. I went to games in the early 80s before OT and the shootout. Spending money to watch something that didn't have a winner and a loser felt awful. If you have never paid money to go and watch a tie in hockey in an arena, trust me, you don't want ties.

2. Scoring system. The NHL is positioned in a way that 32 team have a chance at the playoffs. The scoring system can in ways artificially with loser points create more parity. People buy tickets to hockey games when their team is within striking distance to the playoffs and playoff races. The longer into the season that this can occur the better for the league as a whole. When teams are eliminated by Christmas ticket sales dry up.

3. In the OT format creating rules to force rushes doesn't make sense, regrouping isn't hurting the game that much. The NHL goes to a shootout only 7.9% of games. It isn't ideal but a low enough percentage to be acceptable. 23% of games go to OT so a strong percentage are ended in 3 on 3 so the necessity to change it isn't there.
 
I'm okay with 3on3 but the shootout is so bad. I literally turn the game off if OT ends because I honestly don't give a shit. Just make the game end in a tie.
 
I mean, you can plaster new rules on top to try to fight the "overcoaching" of 3v3 OT. It could certainly use some sort of measures in place to discourage what it's largely become. But at the end of the day, you're really just railing against the natural progression of the game. Coaches are always going to coach the life out of any sort of "novelty". That's basically their job. So at some point you're just adding rules on top of rules on top of rules and it's going to get pretty darn convoluted.
 
My idea for 3v3 is like Husso's but includes the blue lines. Once the defensive blue line is crossed the team with the puck can't recross it into their own zone. Same with the red line and offensive blue line. Less and less space progressively. Delay of game for recrossing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparty
dirtydanglez said:
3v3 is a farce just get rid of it.
Click to expand...
I wish I could get rid of this post in every thread like this

You aren't original and your likes are worthless. We aren't going back to ties, we aren't going to play endless 5 on 5, you aren't saying anything provocative. Perfect Reddit post tho
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeune Poulet
Still waiting for the NHL to smarten up and introduce continuous OT, like MLB and NBA have had for years.

Zero reason for it not to exist in the NHL, especially since it works just fine in the playoffs.
 
SensontheRush said:
Was 4v4 reeeeeeaaally a problem?

Doesn't feel that way today.
Click to expand...
Idk what the rate of going into shootouts is now, but when 3 on 3 was first introduced it really affected the amount of games ending in SO compared to 4 on 4, but now I think those numbers have gotten closer. But, iirc, 3 on 3 is still vastly cutting down the number of games that go to SO.
I'd much rather a hockey game be decided by a 3on3 than a shootout.

Ideally, for me, the best system is 2 points per game, 2 for any win, 0 for any loss, and tie with a point each after a 5 min 4 on 4 ot period.
 
I reiterate, who here that says ties are ok ever paid and went and watched a game that ended in a tie? It is awful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom