NHLPA Votes for 3on3 Overtime

[L K]

So no more 4 on 4 overtime they will go directly to 5 minutes of 3-on-3 and then go to a shootout.

Coaches challenges have now expanded to offsides and goaltender interference on plays resulting in a goal.

 

[Rebel_1812]

4 on 4 and 3 on 3 are both gimmicky and stupid.  Keep it at 5 on 5.  We have the shoot outs to decide things if there are no over time goals anyways.

 

[L K]

4 on 4 and 3 on 3 are both gimmicky and stupid.  Keep it at 5 on 5.  We have the shoot outs to decide things if there are no over time goals anyways.

You view 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 as gimmicky and stupid but you are ok with shootouts?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

You view 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 as gimmicky and stupid but you are ok with shootouts?

I'm fine with 4 on 4, 3 on 3 I'm not sure about. I don't like that it's going straight there. Would have preferred the 4 minutes of 4on4 then 3 3on3, but it sounds like the PA was deadset against extending OT to 7 minutes.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think it's silly. I do feel that 3-on-3 is more gimmicky than 4-on-4. I understand the goal is to reduce games that are decided by shootout, because apparently the shootout is bad.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think it's silly. I do feel that 3-on-3 is more gimmicky than 4-on-4. I understand the goal is to reduce games that are decided by shootout, because apparently the shootout is bad.

They're trying to go after changes to OT to avoid the shootout when the real issue is a points system that encourages getting to OT/SO.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think it's silly. I do feel that 3-on-3 is more gimmicky than 4-on-4. I understand the goal is to reduce games that are decided by shootout, because apparently the shootout is bad.

They're trying to go after changes to OT to avoid the shootout when the real issue is a points system that encourages getting to OT/SO.

That's a bingo!

Can't wait to see coaches line up 3 guys on the blueline.

 

[Nik]

4 on 4 and 3 on 3 are both gimmicky and stupid.  Keep it at 5 on 5.  We have the shoot outs to decide things if there are no over time goals anyways.

You view 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 as gimmicky and stupid but you are ok with shootouts?

I'm not "ok" with shootouts but I recognize them as an unavoidable reality. If that's the case I'd prefer they not add other gimmicks on top of it.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

4 on 4 and 3 on 3 are both gimmicky and stupid.  Keep it at 5 on 5.  We have the shoot outs to decide things if there are no over time goals anyways.

You view 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 as gimmicky and stupid but you are ok with shootouts?

I'm not "ok" with shootouts but I recognize them as an unavoidable reality. If that's the case I'd prefer they not add other gimmicks on top of it.

Personally, I'll take 3-on-3 with less shootouts over the present alternative, though I can appreciate the case to avoid 3-on-3.  I'll say, though, when I recall seeing the Leafs play some 3-on-3 once in the last season or two due to a bunch of penalties, the action was pretty crazy entertaining.  I despise shootouts and will take anything to avoid them.

I used to oppose the idea of a 3-2-1-0 point system for the various levels of wins and losses, but now I see it as the best way to get rid of cheap wins.  I can't see the NHL ever doing anything about the point system, though, as I'm sure they like having a league in which 75% of the teams can claim to have a "winning" record.

 

[herman]

I'm being mildly facetious, but if 3-on-3 OT becomes a reality, does this raise Kessel's value?

 

[Peter D.]

4 on 4 and 3 on 3 are both gimmicky and stupid.  Keep it at 5 on 5.  We have the shoot outs to decide things if there are no over time goals anyways.

Go 5-on-5 and bring back the tie.  Yes, I know it'll never happen.

3-on-3 should be exciting.  I'm undecided if I like extra points being handed out with the number of players reduced.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Some like it, some don't.  A couple of opinions from three NHLers:

Kris Letang ( Pittsburgh)
..."I think it will reduce the time we spend on the ice. For guys that are logging 25, 30 minutes, adding and adding time, the game would finish faster.

There would be less of a system [executed by players]. Some teams want to kill the clock and go to overtime or a shootout, but with three-on-three, you can?t really kill the clock or [play] tight coverage because there?s so much room."


Erik Karlsson (Ottawa)
..."I think three-on-three will be tough. It will be a lot more skating, and it will be harder on some players, but it?s a great one if you want to end the game because it opens up a lot.

I?ve always liked shootouts, so I have no real issue with it.?


Ryan Getzlaf (Anaheim)
?I honestly don?t know if [three-on-three] will be good or bad or what it?ll be...I know we have the shootout that helps decide things, and it?s generally the same guys, but when you?re talking about doing that in the overtime, you?re limiting another group of players that aren?t going to see the ice.

?I do like the shootout. Everyone has the same chance to win games, whether it?s in regulation, overtime or shootout. I am a big believer in ending games. I don?t like the tie.?


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-overtime-three-on-three-four-on-four-shootout-letang-karlsson-getzlaf-rule/

 

[ulfselrach]

I wonder what would now happen when a team takes a penalty in overtime.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I wonder what would now happen when a team takes a penalty in overtime.

4 on 3.

 

[Nik]

I wonder what would now happen when a team takes a penalty in overtime.

Multi-puck? Penalized team's goalie loses his mask? One of the players on the PP gets to wear the other team's jersey for the duration?

 

[L K]

I wonder what would now happen when a team takes a penalty in overtime.

It goes to 4 on 3.  And if a team were unlucky enough to go down two men, it would be 5 on 3.

 

[Stickytape]

I don't think the 4th man on the ice was the biggest problem with the overtime system, but I guess I'm willing to give 3-on-3 a try.

 

[Crucialness Key]

I wonder what would now happen when a team takes a penalty in overtime.

It goes to 4 on 3.  And if a team were unlucky enough to go down two men, it would be 5 on 3.

Should count double, so 1 penalty = 4 on 2, 2 penalties = 5 on 1.  Screw you shootouts! 

 

[Bullfrog]

I wonder what would now happen when a team takes a penalty in overtime.

Multi-puck? Penalized team's goalie loses his mask? One of the players on the PP gets to wear the other team's jersey for the duration?

3-on-0 penalty shot

 

[Highlander]

Should led to a lot more excitment on the ice, no just get those nets a tad wider.