FanDuel - WFBC

April 09, 2005

Finally!: After 9 tries since 1990, the US beats Canada to win the IIHF Women's World Championship.

posted by goddam to hockey at 04:59 PM - 11 comments

of course it sucks that the championship game was decided with a shootout. and it sucks even more that it wasn't on tv in the states.

posted by goddam at 05:06 PM on April 09

a shootout. lousy. lousy lousy. but with the level of competition between the two teams what it is it is kind of surprising that the USA has not won sooner. though they did beat Canada at the Olympics in Nagano.

posted by gspm at 05:47 PM on April 09

Canada doesn't give up a single goal in regulation or overtime in any game during the tournament, and still manages to finish second. 38 goals for, 0 against in 5 games. Shootouts suck for anything other than regular season games. And why is it Canada that always seems to get screwed in these shootouts? Oh well.

posted by grum@work at 06:36 PM on April 09

Hats off to the U.S. women's team, but I heartily concur -- shootouts bite. Why the hell couldn't they just play overtime until someone scored?

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:56 PM on April 09

Shootouts for a title game are grossly unfair -- to the players and the fans. These are two great teams. Let them decide a champion by continuing to play overtime, then the tiredness, etc. would be on both teams. And that way when a team scores, people will at least feel that the team deserved to win.

posted by roberts at 07:17 AM on April 10

Shootouts are awesome. I really don't understand why they're so bad to yall.

posted by Jimbob1077 at 02:11 PM on April 10

Shootouts are awesome. I really don't understand why they're so bad to yall. Simple answer: It's like having a free-throw shooting contest decide an NCAA final game. Or a pass-and-catch contest for the Super Bowl. Or a HR hitting contest for the World Series. Can you imagine any of those games stopping after a single overtime (or extra inning) and then deciding everything by playing in a gimmick resolution?

posted by grum@work at 03:58 PM on April 10

Hey, if 80 minutes aren't enough time to score try something else. /troll

posted by billsaysthis at 09:47 PM on April 10

What about playing sudden death overtime without the goal tenders? Or just keep taking players off every 5 minutes until someone scores....

posted by owlhouse at 11:19 PM on April 10

International basketball doesn't seem to have a problem with playing until someone wins, I don't understand why international hockey has to be so stupid about these things... What about playing sudden death overtime without the goal tenders? Or just keep taking players off every 5 minutes until someone scores.... That would be like playing overtime basketball with the nets lowered to 8 feet, or just playing 2-on-2 ball to decide the NBA title. Blah. One of the few things the NHL has right is to play those playoff hockey games until someone wins, even if it takes 5 overtimes to do it.

posted by grum@work at 11:49 PM on April 10

does anyone know if the men's tournament is run like this as well?

posted by goddam at 12:12 AM on April 11

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.