| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| admin |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 15:34:56
The World Juniors allow one player to shoot multiple times in the shootout - the NHL does not. Which do you prefer? |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 19:01:44
Well playing OT is not only a playoff treat, but it's logically impossible to fit into the regular season. One, from a broadcaster's standpoint but most importantly from a physical standpoint, the players couldn't handle that. Especially in an already long-enough 82-game season. |
| Guest8888 |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 18:59:02
Playing OT until someone scores is a playoff treat and should stay that way. |
| Guest4640 |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 16:40:08
and what was wrong with a tie..the game doesnt need too be changed just let them play as we did since christ was a cowboy breakins ,,,give your head a shake |
| spearbelly |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 17:51:09
Take soccer....PLEASE TAKE IT....................................
At least hockey shootouts make a tad more sense............I know I'm going to upset some soccer Purists,but so what. (Lay down on the ground and squirm )..............
Soccer is an EXTREME low scoring game with few scoring chances yet thier ridiculous shootout allows players to score at a 90% rate standing very near the goal and kicking into a gaping hole while the defenseless goalie looks like a STICKMAN [ You think the pre-1990 NHL goalies looked small ] It's like shooting Albatross in a barrel......................
Here too, they could add a TEAM component by having Corner Kicks to decide games. |
| Guest4664 |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 17:29:52
Let's all keep in mind what the shootout is for. The shootout was designed to attract a much "simpler" crowd to hockey. I agree, it does take away from the team game of hockey but sometimes for ratings it is worth it. I can't lie and say i don't enjoy the shootout as much as i love a key penalty shot; it's edge of the seat action. I would however, like more games to be decided in overtime. That's why playoff times is the best time of the year. Introducing full overtime until there is a winner provides a various amount of problems though. Expecting players to play 80+ minutes introduces higher amounts of injuries, a much slower and less attractive game towards the end (granted playoffs is different, but no coach is going to tell his superstar to use his last strength for game 20), and lastly a very lengthy ordeal in which mostly advocates to the die-hard fans rather than the average joe. Anyways my conclusion is to lengthen both the overtime and the shootout. Far too many overtime games are decided by shootout so lengthen overtime. Secondly, in order to appeal to both the NHL ratings and the fans, require more players take the shootout, i.e. the starting line therefore both the defense and offense must shoot. This hinders the 2 goal, 2 save quick end to a dramatic game, as well penalizes the single superstar teams. I do understand, that this takes out the interaction but it's a hard compromise to make. |
| Guest4734 |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 22:14:16
I thin kthe NHL should make it 10mins ot then shootout for regular season games |
| Guest4248 |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 17:43:33
they cant make OT 20 minutes long!!!! They would be playing 80 minutes of hockey each game, they would go on forever!!!!!!! |
| spearbelly |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 13:38:08
[Leigh.You beat me to the response.Well said. |
| leigh |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 11:22:25
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4711
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I have never been an advocate for the shootout. I really don't like it. I would rather the teams decide who wins, not the individuals. Having said that I know I will never win this argument. So if I had to choose I would choose the current NHL method because at least this way it is a bit more of a team effort.
I propose doing 3 on 1 break-ins instead! It would be better than these rediculous shootouts.
3 on 1 break-ins?????
Oh your a flames fan - that explains it.
Are you daft 4711? Or do you just not read well? I said I hate the idea of these "practice drills" deciding a game. 3 on 1's is stupid. And so is a shoot out. Finish the game in OT!!!!! Or at least add another 5 minutes to it.
I only suggested a 3 on 1 as a more team oriented solution than the shoot out because at least it includes a defensive element.
|
| Guest4711 |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 10:43:16
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I have never been an advocate for the shootout. I really don't like it. I would rather the teams decide who wins, not the individuals. Having said that I know I will never win this argument. So if I had to choose I would choose the current NHL method because at least this way it is a bit more of a team effort.
I propose doing 3 on 1 break-ins instead! It would be better than these rediculous shootouts.
3 on 1 break-ins?????
Oh your a flames fan - that explains it. |
| Guest0623 |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 10:28:32
In my opinion, the whole shootout thing is stupid. It takes away from the whole team idea of hockey. Leigh had the right idea to make overtime more of a team activity, but 3-on-1 is just retarded. They should use the same overtime rules as they use in the playoffs: keep going until someone scores in OT. Either that or they should have a full 20 minutes of OT before resorting to the individual activity of the shootout. |
| spearbelly |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 09:31:00
quote:
Originally posted by Novie
So here's my round-a-bout logic: Someone mentioned that shootouts would generally go longer if the same shooters shot more than once. I, for one, find that more exciting
INCORRECT.WHY not have ONE SUPERSTAR per team take 30 shots while his teamates play with their X BOX's.This is not BADMINTON |
| Novie |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 09:30:55
http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/news_story/?ID=190842&hubname=world_jrs
For more ammo...I mean, information :)
Go Sens |
| spearbelly |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 09:19:05
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I have never been an advocate for the shootout. I really don't like it. I would rather the teams decide who wins, not the individuals. Having said that I know I will never win this argument. So if I had to choose I would choose the current NHL method because at least this way it is a bit more of a team effort.
I propose doing 3 on 1 break-ins instead! It would be better than these rediculous shootouts.
CORRECT.3 on 1's is more of a team effort and the game would be decided quick enough.
Allowing more shooters is the next closest thing to a team effort . SPREAD IT AROUND!!!!! |
| Novie |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 05:27:39
I see both sides on this one, but voted for International. Did anyone else find themselves hating Jack Johnson, more and more after each goal?
So here's my round-a-bout logic: Someone mentioned that shootouts would generally go longer if the same shooters shot more than once. I, for one, find that more exciting than seeing 2 shots, 2 saves, shootout over. SO...if we're getting longer shootouts, I'm all for it!
At the same time, I love seeing the 12th round shooter try something completely ridiculous because he knows he may never get another shootout opportunity (Malik), and then becomes a shootout regular!
If we NEED to have shootuots, either way is fine with me...I like the idea of 2-on-1 breaks...that would be a bit tougher!
Go Sens |
| semin-rules |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 20:53:40
NHL. because the same player could get tired quickly and the goalie could learn his movves and stop him easier. in the NHL using different players who all have different techniques, it would be harder for the goalie to stop all of them
~~~~~GO STARS~~~~~ |
| Guest4248 |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 20:35:41
LOL......You make a Good Point....maybe make each team play on the Power Play for a minute and wait till one team scores? |
| leigh |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 20:21:28
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4248
3 on 1 break ins?
why 3 on 1? why not 5 on 1? why not 5 on 5?
shootouts are much simpler than 3 on 1 break ins
LOL! I know, that is my point. It's rediculous to throw in this weird "hockey drill" to decide a game. Break-in drills are just a much a part of a hockey practice as a shoot out drill. At least with 3 on 1's, (or whatever arbitrary combination you want instead of shootouts) every position gets to decide the outcome and it is more of a TEAM result. And to answer your question 4248, I chose 3 on 1's because it would still result in goals and therefore serve the NHL's broadcasting time restrictions reasonably well. Just set up a 15 second shot clock and stay inside the blue line. Best of 3. It's no more stupid than the shoot out and at least it would add a defensive factor to the result.
Of course I'd prefer 5 on 5 because that would mean we're playing OVERTIME...the way we should be!
Shootouts = bad
Longer overtime = good |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 17:45:29
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
I think the concept of letting the same guys shoot over and over after the third round is ridiculous.
Wow..that was all I needed to type in my long lecture a few posts ago. That sums it all up. |
| Guest4248 |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 17:31:12
3 on 1 break ins?
why 3 on 1? why not 5 on 1? why not 5 on 5?
shootouts are much simpler than 3 on 1 break ins |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 17:29:24
As much as it turned out nice for us Canadians, I think the concept of letting the same guys shoot over and over after the third round is ridiculous. |
| leigh |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 16:34:53
I have never been an advocate for the shootout. I really don't like it. I would rather the teams decide who wins, not the individuals. Having said that I know I will never win this argument. So if I had to choose I would choose the current NHL method because at least this way it is a bit more of a team effort.
I propose doing 3 on 1 break-ins instead! It would be better than these rediculous shootouts. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 16:11:34
quote:
Originally posted by pucker
[explain...
Done
Didn't feel like typing that whole lecture, but since people wanna know, there it is!  |
| pucker |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 16:00:09
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
NHL shoot-out.
explain... |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 15:51:28
NHL shoot-out.
Because if players are allowed to shoot more than once the coaches will obviously choose their best players to do the shooting. The shoot-out could drag on much longer than necessary since all the good players are likely to score a lot, and it will get boring. Once I saw a shoot-out go on for 12 or 13 rounds cuz everyone was scoring--that was with the good, average, and not-so-good players. Imagine how long it would take with only the good ones. Plus, the other players should get a chance to participate, they're part of the team too! Shoot-outs aren't meant as means for the stars of the team to show off how many goals they can score, they're meant to decide winners of games. Everyone participates in the games, not just the handful of players on the team with the most points. |
| pucker |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 15:36:47
Watching Toews score three times on three different moves was way better than watching Kevin Bieksa and Taylor Pyatt struggle in the shootout.
|
