Ville Husso suggest a change to 3 on 3 overtime

[ZDH]

2




wait for it








on 2

 

[Roomba With a Bauer]

Here's a radical idea.
5 minute overtime. Teams play 5-on-5. First team to score a goal wins. The loser gets no points. If neither team scores a goal, the game ends and each team gets a point. Everyone goes home.

I know this is a major change, but I feel like it really raises the stakes in OT and would increase engagement in the game.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

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.

Not singling you out personally, but there's a lot of similar sentiment.

Personally, as a hockey fan, I really don't understand the hatred for 3v3. It's an abomination, why? Because there's less players on the ice... playing hockey, for the most part it's the same rules? The love/content for ties is also puzzling to me. To me, it inspires of lot of playing not to lose than it does playing to win. Teams risk less when they are trying to salvage a point. Shutdown teams will shutdown. A point is better than a loss. To me that's boring.

I'm fine with 4v4 if that makes people happy, but I find 3v3 hockey very intense and fun. Even when it's teams I have zero emotional investment in. I'd be fine with either option until there is a winner.

"BUT IT'S A GIMMICK, I HATE GIMMICKS!" Then screw it, 5v5 20 min periods until someone wins. Ties are an unfulling end for both teams and the fans. 20 minute periods of that sudden death? "But players will get tired playing that much!", then play less of them at a time? Oh, like 4v4 or 3v3. That's fine by me.

I hate ties, but I also dislike the shootout more than any of the OT options presented in this thread.

Here's a radical idea.
5 minute overtime. Teams play 5-on-5. First team to score a goal wins. The loser gets no points. If neither team scores a goal, the game ends and each team gets a point. Everyone goes home.

I know this is a major change, but I feel like it really raises the stakes in OT and would increase engagement in the game.

How about this. Make everyone angry, 5 minute overtime. 5v5. No goal, no winner, no points for anyone.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I hate shootouts and OT, but hate ties more. The gimmick argument sucks. If the game is going to grow, bringing back f***ing ties is one of the most incomprehensibly stupid arguments imaginable.

That being said. As long as we keep continuous OT in the playoffs, I really don’t care too much what they do.

I have zero love for your team, but I agree with your post 100%

 

[hirawl]

Just get rid of the neutral zone for the OT. The red line is the blue line for both teams. No other rule changes needed. Let's go.

 

[Jeune Poulet]

3 on 3 hockey is perfectly fine. It's the point system for the standings that needs an overhaul:

You should get 3 points for a win in regulation, 2 points for a win in OT and 1 point for a win in the shootout.

Loser f***s off with no points whatsoever.

 

[Chips]

3v3 is a farce just get rid of it.

It has potential, there’s a tweak or two that can make teams attack


Otherwise I’d rather have ties. The point was to limit shootouts, and I don’t see the issue with ties

 

[Faterson]

Even soccer shootouts are deciding world cup matches without constant complaints it's not the sport.

I do complain about it, and anyway, it's apples and oranges. Far fewer goals are scored in football than in hockey, so a "shortcut" to determine the winner makes more sense.

However, for the upcoming medal games in Qatar this weekend, they should be played like the Stanley Cup play-offs – until a real goal is scored. (The World Cup typically closes out a season, unlike this time, so there is no reason to cut the final game of the season short artificially.)

It decides Olympic hockey matches in exciting fashion too.

Are you kidding me? There's absolutely no excuse for them to fail to play on in the medal games until a real goal is scored.

There should be an outright ban on shootouts in final games of international tournaments, period. (Ditto for gimmicks like 3 vs. 3; real goals only should ever decide the outcome of such monumentally important games.)

You should get 3 points for a win in regulation, 2 points for a win in OT and 1 point for a win in the shootout.

Loser f***s off with no points whatsoever.

Wrong. You definitely deserve 1 point for getting a tie in regulation. That is a legitimate achievement, too, although a minor one compared to a win. But it's no "loser point" at all – it's a legitimate point for a well-deserved tie.

You're absolutely correct about 3 points for regulation wins, though. Every game should be worth equally 3 points – that's like saying that 2 + 2 = 4. The NHL should **** off with that fake parity.

 

[Oryxo]

Why the hell would anyone want ties to come back? Watching a 60+ minute game and end up with no winner is lame as hell.

They were extremely unpopular when the league had them, so I don't know why there's always a bunch of people bringing up ties in these thread because the chances of them coming back are slim to none.

 

[ItWasJustified]

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”

Ville Husso has obviously read my posts on /hoc/.

 

[kcunac]

within the confines of 3 on 3, doesn’t sound like a bad idea to at least try. I think it would be hard to effectively clog up the neutral zone with only 3 players. Chip and chase would consistently result in odd man chances

 

[MessierII]

Why? Exiting to build up speed in the neutral zone is a legit strategy.

 

[Andy6]

3v3 is great as it is IMO.

If there’s something wrong with it, it’s not that it’s unexciting.

 

[Tanknation]

Why don't we just add a shot clock at this point... just get rid of 3 on 3 and shootouts and bring back ties please.

 

[Allens Five Hole]

If we're just throwing out random changes to the 3 on 3 OT, what about this hot take:

5 on 3 PP's for both sides. Team to score fastest wins the extra point. Home team decides who gets to go first.

Example: Away team scores in 56 seconds. Home team gets 56 seconds on the clock and if they score in that time, they win. If they fail to score in 56 seconds, the away team wins.

If no one scores, they go to a shootout.

It's closer to actual hockey than 3 on 3 is.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Put in a shot clock.

(Jk dont make it more like basketball).



Keep it the way it is. Keeping posession is still a new-ish innovation.

Players will innovate new ways to score.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Well it was marketed as fun and fast-paced yet it's more boring than 4 on 4 was.

That all depends on who is on the ice. 3 on 3 when one team has McDavid and Draisaitl out there, is not boring.

 

[Nasti]

5 on 5, 10 minute overtime. No shootouts.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

My ideal NHL system includes ties, but that's just not realistic for the NHL for some reason.

I'd actually have all games end after 60 minutes - wartime rules baybe! Gotta catch those trains!

Of the proposed solutions that have a realistic chance of going through, extending 3 on 3 for 5 minutes is the best on the table.

Yeah, 3 on 3 is goofy, but as long as the NHL refuses to have ties, anything after 60 minutes is by definition going to be goofy.

My dad suggested going to 4 on 4 in the final five minutes of a game if it's tied, which is an interesting idea.