Page 1 of 1

I've Had Enough! End The Shootout!

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:05 am
by Minstrel
As I say a lot I'm a diehard oldtime hockey guy; I hate things that go so boldly against the traditions of the game as the shootout.

I especially hate it because it's yet another Bettmanizing of the game to make the game "not so wierd to people". The insulting undertones/assumption is that "Well, North American fans don't understand ties and they want to see a winner." Give the fans some gahdamn credit!! They're not that stupid. In fact I've never heard anyone say they like the game less due to the existence of ties. The only time it's really important is in the playoffs and then... no ties means it's not an issue.

It's a glitzy cheezy marketing stunt that cheapens the very essence of the contest it is "deciding". I wish we had a comissioner and other people in charge of the direction of the game that worried more about on ice product and being true to the game, instead of being obsessed with guiding everything by whoever's perception of "what the fans want" is. Hockey has very different fans from other sports which yes, is also the likely reason it's not as popular as games any Joe off the street can understand and appreciate in 2.5 seconds; like basketball and football. It's not chopped down into neat little pieces with action that stops every 5.2 seconds for people's attention spans to catch up to it. Freaking deal with it; it is what it is... an amazingly intricate ebb and flow game that is always moving with grace and ferocity, speed and power. And it takes an entire team giving their all for 60 minutes if they want to call themselves the victor.

This amazingly exciting climax to a game is only that in concept, in execution it is the most boring anti-climactic out of place event known to professional sport. Well the teams have battled for 65 minutes so to decide who wins let's take a ten minute break just to assure that any of the games momentum and passion and importance has the chance to completely fade away like trying to hold a fart in a mitten. :roll:

Okay, now we have three people picked from each team to skate from mid ice on the goaltender to see who scores. Stunning. Amazing. I'm holding my breath at the sheer awesomeness of this moment. Figuratively of course though because I'm still waiting now for the referee to measure everyone's sticks to make sure they are legal first. Were I to actually be holding my breath this might be interesting because by now I'd be seeing stars and birdies... Okay, here goes the first player and there is actually one moment in which it's all very cool, that moment when the shooter either beats the 'tender or the goalie stops him. But even that only happens in one of every three or four shootout attempts and is gone like a big word passing through Paris Hilton's brain. After that? Nothing. Until the next bit of nothing though? Well, we wait of course!!

What follows is the actual timeline from tonights Vancouver/Edmonton game: No need to allow any excitement to build back up here so we're pausing again. Ah, I see it's because we're measuring sticks again. Okay next shooter; no goal... but wait let's see that replay again. Hmm, hard to tell really. The ref said it wasn't a goal. I guess it will go to a video review. Hmm... still no word.

Six minutes later everyone in the crowd is standing around in a collective sense of profound anti-climax and growing frustration. I see, the delay is that now we're on the phone with Toronto so the league office can tell us what we just spent six minutes looking at without a decision and make their own non-decision. NINE MINUTES AND FORTY-SEVEN SECONDS LATER. Wait, no, sorry I guess it is a goal even though there is no way to see the actual puck without an xray, it seems like it's probably under his elbow there and that probably could have been completely over the line if that is indeed where the puck was at the time :roll:

If you want to recapture the excitement of the moment this weekend rent a big action flick and just when it gets right to the peak of that big car chase, pause the movie. Stand up and watch your clock for 10 minutes to go by. Then finish your movie.

We need to put a stop this travesty, now!! I have been rolling with it but I knew I'd really hate it around now as 10 minute long goal reviews are now deciding who makes the playoffs instead of the novel concept of, I don't know, playing hockey. I've seen enough to know the "excitement" and "what fans want to see" arguments have been fully contradicted so there is no possible merit left to this rediculous parlor trick and we should end it now and try to forget it ever happened.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:36 am
by hluraven
I haven't actually read Minty's rant, but I'm sure I agree as I hate shootouts. Perhaps from a "European" perspective, where draws/ties are normal and acceptable, but I can honestly say that Streatham's only tie of the league season was our most exciting game, and a shootout to find an arbitrary winner would have ruined the contest. The obsession that North America seems to have with winners and losers is strange to me, two even teams should split the points available (apologies for the stereotype, but this seems to be the trend)

The NHL policy of awarding three points for overtime/shootout games but two points for a normal win is bizarre as well, and leaves match-fixing on the last games of the season as a real possibility (ie one team needs two points, the other needs one point to guarentee both the playoffs, they play each other, guess the result!)

All-in-all, the shootout is unnecessary, contrived and in my opinion detrimental to the game

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:49 am
by archibalduk
I agree totally. Shootouts are an utter waste of time. It's such an anti-climax and allows a team to win largely on the luck of a one-on-one. If the teams are deadlocked, why can't we just have a tied game?! As Hluraven said, what is this obsession with always having a winner and loser?

hluraven wrote:I haven't actually read Minty's rant, but I'm sure I agree as I hate shootouts.
:D

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:47 am
by Systemfel
Just what I expected. Sooner or later everyone's gonna hate the shootout. Same thing happened in Sweden, that's why it was removed in 2004.

I think they should stick with it in the NHL, though. 8-) It's fun to watch if it doesn't involve your team.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:40 pm
by noctambulist
Personally, I don't care about ties. I'm fine with them. If two teams battle it out for 65 minutes and can't decide a winner, then they both deserve a point. I think the shootout is a gimmick. But more importantly, let me explain why having a winner is so important in American sports.

It's one word: Gambling

You can't make good odds on a game that can end in a tie, and I've heard many professional gamblers say that only a fool would bet on a game that can end in a tie. Like it our not, gambling on sports is HUGE business in the US. Why is NCAA basketball and football so popular? It's because they are two of the most bet on sports in the country. If you can develop a strong gambling audience to hockey, you'll start seeing hockey in more sports bars and people will watch more games other than just their home team.

The problem is that the shootout still isn't a good way to decide a game, and it is still not good for odds making because of the luck involved. So it's a poor solution at best.

If it was to stay in the game, I think it would help the NHL if the players did the shootout with no helmets on. The NHL has always been criticized for being a "faceless" game. The average viewer doesn't seem to be able to connect with the players. If in the shootout they could take their helmets off, this would do a lot to help people identify with the players.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:30 pm
by E5150_ca
Personally, I like seeing the shootout, but I don't think you should be awarded the same amount of points as winning it in actual regulation. This has probably been brought up before, but I figured I'd just re-hash it.


Win in regulation = 3 points
Win in Overtime/shoot-out = 2 points
Lose in Overtime/shoot-out = 1 point
Lose in Regulation .005 points. (So if you do that a bunch you eventually get a point out of it :-p


I do hope though, that no shoot-outs decide a play-off game. That would suck.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:54 pm
by inSTAALed
I hate ties... mainly because the Hurricanes had so many.

It was boring to go to a game every night and have it just end tied.

I like the shootout, personally.

And it will be the same in the Playoffs. Consecutive 20 minute overtimes.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:15 pm
by flea
inSTAALed wrote:And it will be the same in the Playoffs. Consecutive 20 minute overtimes.
So the playoff games this year can also be decided by shootout??? This would happen after two 20 minutes overtimes??

Did I understand it right??

If yes, then I dont like it, in the regular season, well, ok I can live with it, but in the playoff I think it would be a mistake...

But only my 2 cents though...

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:34 pm
by munky
If shootouts ever make it into the playoffs I'm going to shoot Gary Bettman.


Seriously.

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:00 pm
by inSTAALed
No, no shootouts in the playoffs.

It's like it has been pre lockout.

Continuous 20 minute overtimes...

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:49 pm
by BlackCats101
hluraven wrote:I haven't actually read Minty's rant
:-D :yadda: ;)

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:50 pm
by BlackCats101
E5150_ca wrote:Personally, I like seeing the shootout, but I don't think you should be awarded the same amount of points as winning it in actual regulation. This has probably been brought up before, but I figured I'd just re-hash it.


Win in regulation = 3 points
Win in Overtime/shoot-out = 2 points
Lose in Overtime/shoot-out = 1 point
Lose in Regulation .005 points. (So if you do that a bunch you eventually get a point out of it :-p


I do hope though, that no shoot-outs decide a play-off game. That would suck.
Agreed :thup:

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:04 pm
by Shadd666
Shout-outs are,according to me,totally useless... and if the NHL wants more winners,why don't simply give more points for a win?... I think the Elitserien points system is pretty good for that:

3 points for a win in regulation
2 points for a win in overtime
1 point for a tied game or a lose in overtime
0 point for a lose in regulation

With this system,every team has to win as often as possible in regulation,and furthermore avoid a tie game. Because if you're in a battle for the last final playoff spot with a team who won his game in regulation and you have only a tied game,it's 2 points losed! And even if you win in overtime,you still lose 1 point...

According to me,it would be the best points system...but it's only my opinion... 8-)

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:20 pm
by Weirdness
Shadd666 wrote:
3 points for a win in regulation
2 points for a win in overtime
1 point for a tied game or a lose in overtime
0 point for a lose in regulation
I like that. There's nothing I hated more than seeing teams just shut down for the last 5 minutes so they could "play for the point." The winner should be rewarded for winning in regulation, and the loser shouldnt be rewarded just because they made it to overtime. Although I guess they are in this system, its advantage is lessened greatly.

This way the standings can be a bit less rediculous, as all games would now dish out and equal amount of points. New records would need to be made, however, as it would be now possible to get a maximum of 246 points in a season.


Or just get rid of the points for OT/SO losses. Yeah, its naff to have a team not get any points for losing a shootout (I know the Flames would, Kipper is a terrible shootout goaltender), but I think teams will actually try harder to put the game away in regulation this way, and there will no longer be a reward for "losing."

I always found the loser points a lot more befuddling than ties. Why reward failure?

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:17 pm
by Shadd666
Weirdness wrote:Why reward failure?
Loosing a game in overtime means a better opposition to the winner than loosing in the regulation time... There's not a lot of difference between the 2 teams,so 2 points for the winner and 1 point for the looser seem fair...

But if the difference is made in regulation time,it's 3 points to nothing,which allows to make big distances in the standings,and the better teams would be more easilly at the top.

Rewarding a loose in overtime allows to make more easilly the difference between the bottom teams... A team who loose 60 times in regulation deserve far less than one who loose 30 times in regulation and 30 times in overtime,no?

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:27 pm
by grazza
I don't like shootouts and think they are unnessary.

5 minutes for overtime in regular season is too short. I say make it 10 minutes but with no shootout. Though the NHL is about entertainment and money and casuals like the shootout so from a business point of view is good for the NHL. With the new rules the game is more offensive and i think has helped teh NHL so soubel the overtime and there is a good chance there will be a deciding goal in that time if not then no team deserves to be called the winner.

The DEL have the 3 points in regulation wins but no overtime and go to shoouts for 2 points a win. I play my net game with the uk teams swoped with DEL teams and I think this system allows teams at the top to break away from the rest much earlier on. therefore I cannot support the 3 points for a win idea. though the DEL is ridiculous with no OT at all.

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:07 pm
by Minstrel
I agree with grazza; five minutes is far too short. They switch to 4 on 4 helped but 10 minutes sudden death would be a far better "settle it with hockey" solution than "settle a hockey game with a mini skills competition".

It's also a great point about the 'new NHL'; with the increase in scoring/chances due to the crackdown on the clutching and grabbing the shootout was an entirely unneccessary addition. It was concieved to add excitement at the end of a game to make fans forget the boring 1-1 trapfest they just watched. 10 minutes 4v4 under the "new" rules (which are just calling the rules they already had but I won't get going again on that one) over a full season would certainly decide a great majority of the games, far far more than previously so the "what next" question become moot and we can put this shootout silliness behind us.

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:50 am
by Shadd666
I agree with Grazza and Minty: NO SHOOTOUTS!!! And a real overtime: 10 minutes and 4v4. And also a return to the tied games system if there's no winner after overtime (1 point for each team).

I also think that 3 points for a win in regulation and 2 points for a win in overtime would be a good system,as the teams would have a huge interest in winning in regulation,and it would offer a more offensive game in the last minutes if a team need points or if it's a game between two teams fighting for a playoff spot.

But there's already a new CBA,signed for many years (4 or 6 i think,but i don't remember exactly),so we certainly won't see a change or rules before the next CBA.

Anyone knows how we can make proposition of new rules to the NHL? Because i'm not sure that NHL's comissioner comes often on TBL...

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:41 pm
by Minstrel
That's cause we wouldn't let Bettman have an account here :-x Heh.

However the rules are by no means set in stone for the extent of the CBA; all of these things now fall under the authority of the new Competiton Comittee or whatever the hell they are calling it; the groupe with players like Shannahan and Broduer plus owners plus referrees; they meet I think it's six times a year to review the rules and make suggestions that can at any time me voted into testing or full-on adoption by the league.

Brodeur for example has been suggesting a change to the 'trapezoid' area behind the nets that is gettting serious consideration for next year; there is of course also a debate about the 'puck played into the crowd' penalty some people are against or at least would like to see refined. Those kinds of things can be changed without a new CBA; it's legal realted matters that are set ins stone pretty much such as contracts, existance of the Cap, and issues like arbitration and drug testing.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:31 am
by Shadd666
Thanks for the information ;)

However,how can someone make a proposition for new rules?

I'm not sure that they'll hear the voice of a poor guy lost in a country where we only can play soccer,but nothing prevents me for trying...