The shootout, the NHL's guilty little pleasure.

I don't so much as dislike the shoot-out, rather I would like to see a format change. It should not be the way they are doing it. It should be more like each team takes ten tries and whomever has the most goals at that point wins.

posted by hookamanfl at 10:05 AM - reply - flag:

I'm a fan, and I have an intense dislike for the shootout. It's an artificial way to declare a winner at the end of an evenly played game, and it was only done to satisfy you cretins in the States who can handle a tie. Hee hee hee ... I'm really enjoying my new Canuck status.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:17 AM - reply - flag:

I like it today. Pony Up!

posted by garfield at 10:42 AM - reply - flag:

I had no problem with ties (I'm a dirty Yank) but I do dislike the OT point. Since every game has a winner and a loser they should go to a % like the NBA or MLB.

posted by HATER 187 at 10:53 AM - reply - flag:

I think that the shootout is a great way to decide a game but I agree with hater that the OT point is stupid. I'm always telling people (often Michigan State fans after the Micigan-Michigan State game) there is no place in the standings for almost winning except in hockey. Why a team should get a point for not being the clutch team and finishing a game makes no sense to me.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:19 AM - reply - flag:

I have a problem with some games being worth more in the standings than others. Which is it? 2 pts or 3 pts?

posted by garfield at 11:27 AM - reply - flag:

Let me just remind everyone of why the NHl has these new rules and regulations, that being THE FANS, they were not coming to the games because the sport was getting boring, and i'm sorry Canada if you're all about sportsmans ship and love a good tie but everyone here wants a winner because if the good teams are as good as they say they are then they should have no problem winning he shootouts. Now whether coaches like or dislike the shootout its pretty much meaningless cause they're stuck with it either way, now as far as i can remember the Fans pay the players and coaches and teams salaries so its about time we got what we want and come on its the most exciting play in hockey and if players are nervous about it then they should not play in the big leagues.... i'm Out.

posted by Friarfann3 at 01:00 PM - reply - flag:

You are indeed out.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:05 PM - reply - flag:

Way out. How 'bout you not speak for all the hockey lovers in The States? I, for one, can't stand the shootout determining the winner. These guys play their guts out for 60 minutes and then a two minute shootout decides which is the better team. Hockey is a team sport. The shootout reduces it to a one-on-one competition that almost arbitrarily decides the outcome. I'll take a tie anyday over this bullshit shootout format.

posted by willthrill72 at 01:21 PM - reply - flag:

I hold a US birth certificate and the opinion that shootouts suck. My head has not exploded from the dichotomy.

posted by yerfatma at 01:43 PM - reply - flag:

Me too, yerfatma; my head, however, is now a dichotomic mess on the walls of my cubicle. What cruel wizard suggested such a combustible combination?

posted by Hugh Janus at 02:42 PM - reply - flag:

The same bastard who made Scanners.

posted by yerfatma at 02:47 PM - reply - flag:

I was going to respond to Friarfann3, but I couldn't find the end of a sentence.

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:00 PM - reply - flag:

They seem to end with the following, "...he shootouts." and "...i'm Out." Hope that helps.

posted by tselson at 03:16 PM - reply - flag:

I also hate the shotout. I have no problem with no ties, but if they want no ties they should have a 4 on 4 overtime for 10 min. followed by a 3 on 3 overtime if needed. To me the sudden death ot is more exciting than the shotout. GO RANGERS Prucha for the CALDER

posted by tupacalypse at 03:37 PM - reply - flag:

I was opposed to the shootouts but after seeing a few I really enjoyed watching them. I have no problem w/ them except that it would be disappointing if a team with a poor record did make the playoffs only because of the extra points they got from the shootouts. Plus I never had a problem w/ a tie, & I think an extra 5 min. of 3 on 3 OT would be exciting too.

posted by njsk8r20 at 03:48 PM - reply - flag:

Prucha looks crazy good, and from nowhere - but you gotta still give Crosby, Ovetchkin and Lundqvist the lead there - the first two see the best defensive players and the third plays the most important position on a winning hockey club. Then I gotta give Phaneuf and Svatos the 4, 5 spots - then I'm willing to talk about Prucha. Damn - good year for rookies when the 18 goal kid is good for about 6th. I don't mind the shootout - it's just politics. But it is going to have a profound effect on some teams making the playoffs or not (remember, Minnesota made it in last time around on the strength of 20 fucking ties). But, given that there are 16 teams in the playoffs, if the shootout is the deciding factor between in and out, you're probably not that good to begin with.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:56 PM - reply - flag:

It is awesome that they get to shoot it out; It's clutch time baby!!! Go devils

posted by dahmyze5280 at 06:05 PM - reply - flag:

I don't miss the two-line pass calls, I don't miss the " left-wing lock "( does anyone who can skate?). but I think I am starting to miss the ties. Did anyone really complain about the ties? A sport which scores by ones, that has historically established that it is hard to score more than a few goals in a game( Edmonton of the 1980's not included )is defined by the struggle to come back and save a point with a tie. I believe that aspect of the sport is undermined by a "shoot out" Of course that being said; it sure is fun to watch. It reminds me of when I was a kid we would play a game called "Showdown" one on one, mono y mono, goalie vs shooter, me vs you. That was mostly because not enough kids had showed up yet to get in a full game, but it was still fun!

posted by at 06:57 PM - reply - flag:

Before the season started I was against all of the rule changes. I felt like people that didn't really know hockey were dictating how it should be played, that because it wasn't exciting enough for THEM that the game itself should change, it didn't make sense to me from a hockey-snobbish viewpoint. Nevertheless I've changed my view, especially regarding the two line pass change and the trapezoid (I LOVE THOSE!). The current shootout format does seem like a lame way to decide a game but I no longer detest it nearly as much as I once did, even considering the fact that my Mighty Ducks are like 0 and 7 in OT, 3 or 4 of those losses being in shootouts. Although I didn't have a problem with ties in the first place, having watched a couple of those losses in person I must admit I feel better leaving a game after a shootout loss than after a tie.

posted by captaincavegirl at 08:40 PM - reply - flag:

As a fan of a team that sucks multiple asses - a team that cannot seem to win in the shootout - I still gotta say I love it. It's overtime, and even though I know with almost 100% certainty that my shitty team will lose because of what is basically a bullshit marketing ploy, I'm still glued to the TV. I pop a sports boner at the start of a shootout. A Minnesota/Florida shootout? Yeah, I'll watch that. Because it's fun.

posted by Samsonov14 at 08:53 PM - reply - flag:

Sammy, what do you say you and I get together and pull a The Ref-type incident on Harry Sinden and Jeremy Jacobs? Celtic Pride, baby!

posted by yerfatma at 09:18 PM - reply - flag:

A Minnesota/Florida shootout? Yeah, I'll watch that. Because it's fun. Samsonov14 hit the nail on the head. I like the shootout (even though my favourite team seems to SUCK at them) because even a dull affair by two teams I don't care about can still have some decent highlights because of the shootout. It should be more like each team takes ten tries and whomever has the most goals at that point wins. That would take too long, and it doesn't make for good TV. The point of the shootout was to decide a winner in a reasonably quick manner (since the fans have sat through 2 hours of hockey already), and to give them something to talk about the next day (like Malik's beauty). but I agree with hater that the OT point is stupid. If you didn't offer the consolation prize of a point for losing in the overtime, you'd have teams playing for the tie (again). The idea is that if you win you get the extra point, so you might as well play hell-bent on getting that point. If you lose, you don't suffer a penalty for giving up a goal in a mini-4-on-4 game (which is just as "artificial" as the shootout).

posted by grum@work at 11:43 PM - reply - flag:

Sudden death is more exciting then a shootout to determine the out come of a game. If it ends in a tie then so be it. That's the way hockey was meant to be played. I hate the new rules. Next thing you know they'll outlaw blood on the ice and they might as well change the name to badmitten. Or worse...soccer.

posted by commander cody at 01:30 AM - reply - flag:

The only thing the shootout accomplishes is giving one team an extra fake point to pad their standings with, the goals don't count towards a players regular season total, the game is a wash anyway with both teams taking home at least 1 point. i played and coached hockey my whole life and I love this game more than life itself, I am sickened by the bullshit penalties and the NHL'S attempt to make the game more fan friendly. Fan friendly meaning bringing the game down to a level that a bunch of dumb fucks that are used to watching 200 points a night in a b-ball game can follow and be entertained by a 7-6 game. Hockey is a tough sport, you have to work hard for a goal, some of the most exciting games I ever played in or watched or coached were 1-0 or 2-1 games. piss on these assholes that can't follow it. We don't need Fox Trax, we don't need a puck halo, we don't need shoot outs. we need a game that is played tough and hard and too the finish. we need a sudden death. we need a game that is played all fucking night until someone scores to take home 2 points and the loser takes home zip. this will eliminate teams playing for a tie or playing for the opportunity to pick up an extra point in a fake ass spectacle like a shootout. some people say that playing until there is a winner is not feasable because of the schedule and the rigor of the nhl season. I say bullshit. only the strong survive and thats fucking life. I love hockey and i want it back

posted by Coach_B at 03:52 AM - reply - flag:

Would anybody have been happier if the multiple overtime finals contest between the Panthers and the Avalanche could have been settled by a shoot out. I know that there will be no shootouts in the playoffs. Which is what makes the regular season all the more pointless( there is a pun in there somewhere) How can hockey have two sets of rules for deciding the winner of a game? When technically the shoot outs do not determine a winner of the games played, but rather a winner of a standing point, which is even more pointless.( same pun intended )If you consider that the fan base at a play off game is generally more casual( and wealthy) than a regular season contest. So If the NHL board of governors would have thought this through( if their intent was to draw more fans outside of the base core of "die hards") then they would reverse the regular season and playoff rules. That of course would conclude that they want sell a weaker product to a broader audience. Then I will be forced to watch college basketball and minor league hockey. How long before they start to count shoot out goals, so we can have 150 goal scorers(bye,bye Great one(99), hello great ones!), then we can have MLB like record breakers.Yeah! and a" magic pinata" in between periods full of Ipods and local gift certificates( I though of it first) to enhance the already "mall-like" atmosphere of the newer arenas.

posted by at 08:48 AM - reply - flag:

I say play until someone wins, no matter how long it takes. The team that's too tired has the option of letting in a goal if it's too much for them. There's nothing worse than paying $75.00 for a game ticket and coming away seeing a tie. Too many teams were coming away happy about playing to a tie.

posted by dyams at 10:07 AM - reply - flag:

How can hockey have two sets of rules for deciding the winner of a game? Football does it and no one seems to complain: - In the regular season, you can still end up with a tie. - In the playoffs, there is ALWAYS a winner. Baseball has different rules for September/October regular season games (roster size). Soccer has different rules for regular season games and elimination-tournament games (golden goals and shootouts). we need a game that is played all fucking night until someone scores to take home 2 points and the loser takes home zip. In the regular season? That's just assinine. How long do you think people are going to stay for a game in January that has such a small affect on the standings? One of the complaints about regular season hockey games was that they took too long to finish. Now you want them to play an extra hour or more? Considering that there are many times in the schedule where teams have to travel across the country, forcing them to miss their travel connections seems a bit harsh. I am sickened by the bullshit penalties and the NHL'S attempt to make the game more fan friendly. So you were completely happy with the clutching and grabbing and hooking and holding? You would rather have players like Spezza and Crosby try and skate towards the net while neanderthal defencemen drape themselves over their backs like oversized octopi? The team that's too tired has the option of letting in a goal if it's too much for them. There's nothing worse than paying $75.00 for a game ticket and coming away seeing a tie. I think there is something worse: paying $75.00 for a game ticket and watching a team give up and lose because they need to catch their flight out to California for their next game in 40 hours. Or paying $75.00 for a game ticket for your 12 year old son and having to leave before it's over because it's past midnight and he has to go to school the next day.

posted by grum@work at 11:02 AM - reply - flag:

Football does it and no one seems to complain: - In the regular season, you can still end up with a tie. - In the playoffs, there is ALWAYS a winner. True that! However football and hockey have completely different pacing. A football game has constant stoppages as per the rules of the game to allow for a reset. There are multiple ways to score in football. Hockey has one goal, that is to score one goal. It is a continuous(some times beautiful) flow of action. This is one reason why football is a much better TV sport than hockey. Now quickly can you remember the last time there was a tie in the NFL, I can't!... and I have total recall! ( sort of)

posted by at 11:26 AM - reply - flag:

the overtime solution is simple, 4 on 4 for 10 minutes, if no score 3 on 3. at least finish the game with a goal. And yes I was completly happy with the trap and obstruction in the neutral zone. I loved the fact that you had to be somewhat tough to get to the net.

posted by Coach_B at 12:31 PM - reply - flag:

I don't like the shootout, never did. In fact, if anything, I hate this 3 man shootout even more than the 5 man standard. I agree with a lot of people here. However, one thing pisses me off everytime I hear it. Whenever a game goes into a shootout, one of the bonehead commentators ALWAYS says "LOOK, THE FANS HAVEN'T LEFT YET" as though it's some justification for the "excitement" of the shootout. Hello moron... they haven't left BECAUSE THE GAME WAS TIED AND UNFINISHED. Sorry, needed to vent. And, besides, if you watched many of these games, OT is where the real excitement is. I've seen some truly amazing overtime periods this year... and after they were done, the shootout was, really, anticlimactic.

posted by mkn at 01:28 PM - reply - flag:

As long as they restricted the size of goalie pads, I am happy. Anahiem won the cup three years ago because their goalie was wearing couch cusions on his legs. lame. That guys sucks. What European country does he play in now?

posted by RadioZombie at 02:31 PM - reply - flag:

Anaheim did not win the Stanley Cup. New Jersey did. Giguere is still in Anaheim, and he was never the worst with the pad size, so I don't know who or what you are talking about.

posted by mkn at 02:36 PM - reply - flag:

Try being a Blues fan this year. They can do away with the puck for all I care.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 03:35 PM - reply - flag:

Anaheim did not win the Stanley Cup. New Jersey did. Giguere is still in Anaheim, and he was never the worst with the pad size, so I don't know who or what you are talking about. Garth Snow is "king pads". I think he was using "shingles placed on their edges" on his shoulder pads. but he was born in Vermont.. although both he and Jean Sebastian have fallen on harder times.

posted by at 03:35 PM - reply - flag:

I am from the the States and I hate the shootout.suddendeath ot is the best to handle that,and to all the hateful shmucks from Canada.Remeber if I where not for THE USA you wouldnt have much of a sport.Happy New Years

posted by emd0807 at 04:23 PM - reply - flag:

I have no doubt that Canada could do just fine with the game they invented without some fans from the U.S. trying to ruin the game by watering the sport down. Far too many penalties and too much bitching from some that there is too much fighting and violence in it. Fighting is as much a part of what hockey is as the puck and the goals. Those who don't like it don't have to watch. Besides it's like taking the hitting out of boxing. It just doesn't work. By the way, I'm not a "shmuck" (?) from Canada, I'm from Los Angeles.

posted by commander cody at 04:36 PM - reply - flag:

Some of the reasons I love Hockey: It's played on ice!, not wood, grass or plastic, If during the course of a game you feel the need to beat the shit out of another player you can, but they may ask you to sit out the next 5 minutes. The very same action in another sport and they may ask you to sit out the season. If you feel occation to hit another player with a stick you have to leave the game for 2 minutes, 5 if he bleeds, maybe the rest of the game if he is unconscious. If you even attempted this in baseball they would never let you play again. Players routinely have facial lacerations that require them to leave the game long enough to get 20 or 30 quick stitches then back to the action. What a game!

posted by at 05:20 PM - reply - flag:

I also have this fantasy of a fight breaking out during Curling too. But the result of that could get you death! LOL

posted by commander cody at 05:48 PM - reply - flag:

Players routinely have facial lacerations that require them to leave the game long enough to get 20 or 30 quick stitches then back to the action. What a game! My very first Hockey game (Blues vs somebody) I was lucky enough to get seats (my company's) right behind the plexiglass. In one play, where someone was slammed against the boards, I actually saw teeth and blood hit the glass where I sat. Odd thing was, the game went on without even a whistle. It was scary great!

posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:49 PM - reply - flag:

Remeber if I where not for THE USA you wouldnt have much of a sport.Happy New Years Now that's funny. Product of a public school education, no doubt.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:27 PM - reply - flag:

/cries over Quebec Nordiques jersey.....

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:45 PM - reply - flag:

No weedyMcSmokey it is not funny but the the thruth.ps weedy I went to Catholic school since your so interested in my education.Thanks for caring.

posted by emd0807 at 07:39 AM - reply - flag:

The nuns obviously didn't hit you enough during capitalization and punctuation classes.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:41 AM - reply - flag:

Friday, December 30, 2005

Comments