Hockey Question

[Olaf the Stout]

Something I've suggested for American Football would work: base the amount of points awarded for success upon the distance the ball traveled for the score...

In Soccer, that would mean a goal from within the box during flow of play would be 1 point...one tipped home from a set play started outside the box would count for 2.

Any untipped shot from outside the box that simply gets past the goalie...3 points.

It would reward those who are skilled enough to strike from 40+ out, while punishing goalies who play sloppily and probably eliminating 70+% of ties.

Win-Win-Win!

Yes, this is similar to the scoring in NBA Basketball...but in basketball, the individual goal is a common thing, whereas a score in Soccer is hard-earned. A single goal from long-distance could win the game...

I'm not a die-hard soccer fan (see I called it soccer, not football! ) but I think that your suggestion would be opposed by the vast majority of fans, players and officials. A change like that would drastically alter the entire way that the game is played.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep, and I'd be one of them.

The point is the game is set up so that goals are hard to come by, and a neccessary byproduct of this is tie games. Well, there are only a few ways to alleviate ties:

1) increase scoring

2) shootouts

3) overtime

4) turn the decision over who wins to a panel of judges- Who played best during the tie?

5) other

All have their benefits, but all also have serious flaws

 

[Olaf the Stout]

For something as big as a World Cup final I think that the match should be replayed if there is no winner after 2 periods of extra time. If that isn't possible then I think that they should play periods of extra time until a winner is decided. To increase the chances of a goal I would reduce the number of players on the field as more periods of extra time were played. Still not the ideal outcome but it would make it a better conclusion than a shootout in my opinion.

Of course, in situations like the knockout stages of the World Cup the shootout may still be the best option. If one side had to play 5 periods of extra time to make it through to the quarter-finals they might be too tired to actually play out the next game.

Olaf the Stout

 

[devilbat]

To bring this back to hockey, let me say that the shootout is a fantastic way to determine the victor in a regular season game.

There are so many games in the NHL regular season, there is no way that ongoing, sudden death overtime is a viable option. The 4 on 4 overtime that is played still results in to many ties, and the shooutout is incredibly exciting. Everytime I attend a close game, I'm hoping for a shootout, and so are the majority of fans who I have spoken to.

That being said, I do not think that any play-off, championship or medal game should ever be determined by a shoot-out.

 

[drothgery]

Not a big hockey fan, but I've said this with regard to football (one of the few things I agree with John Madden on is that the best regular season overtime rule in the NFL would be no overtime, especially now that the 2-point conversion makes it easier to go for the win in regulation) --

What's wrong with regular season ties, especially if you've got playoffs and/or a long regular season?

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I personally don't see the problem with regular season draws. In Australian Rules football they rarely happen (about 1-2 draws a season in 176 games) but they are still exciting when they do.

The best one we had in a while was when 15th was playing 16th to see who would most likely finish bottom. It was dubbed the battle for the Bryce Gibbs cup as whoever lost would get the No 1 draft pick and get Bryce Gibbs, the player generally agreed upon as the best in the draft.

Both teams played so crap that neither of them could win!

In the finals if there is a draw then 2 x 5 minutes of extra time are played. That has only ever happened once and it was long enough to determine a winner.

If the grand final is a draw then the match is replayed the next week. This has only happened once in over 100 years.

Olaf the Stout

 

[devilbat]

Not a big hockey fan, but I've said this with regard to football (one of the few things I agree with John Madden on is that the best regular season overtime rule in the NFL would be no overtime, especially now that the 2-point conversion makes it easier to go for the win in regulation) --

What's wrong with regular season ties, especially if you've got playoffs and/or a long regular season?

The NHL decided, and rightfully so, that the game had become to defensive, and one of the strategies to speed it up was eliminate ties.

You see, there were several lower rung teams that would play for ties. They'd even up the score, and then go into a defensive shell, know as the Neutral Zone Trap, which is as exciting to watch as paint drying. The league already struggles with viewership in the mid to Southern U.S. and this brand of hockey was not going to appeal to anyone. So by eliminating ties, instituting first the 4 on 4 overtime, and later, the shootout, they created an exciting and climactic end to close games. Couple that with ensuring the referee's called the game that way it was meant to be played, eliminating much of the clutching and grabbing that was prevelent in the sport over the last ten years, and you were left with the speedy, exciting game that is Hockey in 2006.

 

[Teflon Billy]

To bring this back to hockey, let me say that the shootout is a fantastic way to determine the victor in a regular season game.

There are so many games in the NHL regular season, there is no way that ongoing, sudden death overtime is a viable option. The 4 on 4 overtime that is played still results in to many ties, and the shooutout is incredibly exciting. Everytime I attend a close game, I'm hoping for a shootout, and so are the majority of fans who I have spoken to.

That being said, I do not think that any play-off, championship or medal game should ever be determined by a shoot-out.

Well there, now I don't have to post. I agree with everything Devilbat said from beginning to end.

 

[Agamon]

To bring this back to hockey, let me say that the shootout is a fantastic way to determine the victor in a regular season game.

There are so many games in the NHL regular season, there is no way that ongoing, sudden death overtime is a viable option. The 4 on 4 overtime that is played still results in to many ties, and the shooutout is incredibly exciting. Everytime I attend a close game, I'm hoping for a shootout, and so are the majority of fans who I have spoken to.

That being said, I do not think that any play-off, championship or medal game should ever be determined by a shoot-out.

Yep, me too. It's funny, I get more teed off when my team loses in OT, but not so much if they lose in a SO, even though it's pretty much the same result. I think that has more to do with the teams I like (the Habs and Flames, who are not so good at SOs, so I don't expect much).

That said, what they need to do now, is stop awarding points for the losers after reg time, who right now aren't the winners, but not quite losers, either.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Yep, me too. It's funny, I get more teed off when my team loses in OT, but not so much if they lose in a SO, even though it's pretty much the same result. I think that has more to do with the teams I like (the Habs and Flames, who are not so good at SOs, so I don't expect much).

That said, what they need to do now, is stop awarding points for the losers after reg time, who right now aren't the winners, but not quite losers, either.

I find the 1 point for an OT loss funny. It reminds me of sports for small children where everyone got a trophy just for competing. You lost but you tried hard. Here have a point.

Olaf the Stout