Hey MacKenzie......Wanna Bet???????

[tony b]

That's a recent change in NHL and other hockey leagues. I was surprised by it at the beginning of the season with our local team. My first reaction was to look up at the scoreboard to see if there were penalties? Nope, just how they do it now, as they were trying to reduce the number of games going to a shoot out. 

[cschaaf]

On 2/23/2018 at 10:52 AM, tony b said:

So they did follow "classical" hockey OT protocols. I gathered from the online comments that they had done something unique, as I was seeing complaints about the format. 

And, yes, to get to a sudden death shoot out is seriously rare in hockey - at any level. Tells you how evenly matched the teams were!

What people are mad about is settling a medal game with what is essentially, a skills competition. The NHL does shootouts for regular season, but not in the playoffs. 

I'm old-school, so I was never bothered by an NHL regular season game ending in a tie after a 5 min OT, but a large chunk of the US viewing audience hated ties, so the NHL added the shootout.

I don't like the shootouts at all, the equivalent seems like ending an NFL game with a field goal kicking contest or an NBA game with a free throw contest; but if it brings more fans to the game, that's a trade I think you have to take. In the regular season, you can't have teams playing OT after OT to determine a winner; the schedule just doesn't allow it.

The Olympics seem to get that deciding a game by shootout is not ideal so they change the rules for each round. In the group play, there is a 5 min OT, then shootout. In the bronze medal game, it's a 10 min OT, then a shootout. And in the gold medal game, it's a 20 minute OT, then a shootout. That adds to the confusion.

I always wonder what it's like to watch the shootout ending for someone that's never seen hockey before. "I've been watching people chase each other and that little black disc around for 80 minutes and now they cut to a different game? It looks similar, the players look similar, but now everyone is standing around and watching one player?"

I don't like the shootout ending to a medal game, but I think they are also in a spot where they don't have much choice. You can't have a game going 5 OTs with all of the other sports that are going on.

[MacKenzie]

Before the game started I was thinking the very last thing I wanted to see was the winner decided by a shoot out and we all know what I got. 

[Aussie Ora]

I'm with you all on this one. I personally believe shoot outs are crap. If it's a draw the two teams need to play again .I can understand the logistics of this getting venue ready again people resheduling their plans providing new tickets. But so what .the Australian Rules Football used to in force this rule in a grand final being a high score game the odds of a draw are high but last year they have brought in extra time .in saying this yes it's thrilling and fun to watch but I would preffer they play again

Outback kamado Bar and Grill

[tony b]

To play devil's advocate (I have no personal skin in this argument), if you had multiple OTs instead of the shootout, then instead of a "skills contest" it become an "endurance contest." Which is more representative of the 2 teams abilities - talent/skill or conditioning? I've see college basketball playoff games go to 3 OTs. By that point, everyone is exhausted and half the team has fouled out, so it's mostly the "scrub team" on the floor; consequently, is the winner more deserving to play on based upon endurance over skill? No right answer to this one I'm afraid - at least it's not an obvious one to me?

[cschaaf]

5 hours ago, tony b said:

To play devil's advocate (I have no personal skin in this argument), if you had multiple OTs instead of the shootout, then instead of a "skills contest" it become an "endurance contest." Which is more representative of the 2 teams abilities - talent/skill or conditioning? I've see college basketball playoff games go to 3 OTs. By that point, everyone is exhausted and half the team has fouled out, so it's mostly the "scrub team" on the floor; consequently, is the winner more deserving to play on based upon endurance over skill? No right answer to this one I'm afraid - at least it's not an obvious one to me?

Makes sense with basketball where one can easily foul out. There aren't too many players kicked out of hockey games - and usually if they are, they are of the scrub variety

The hockey shootout, IMO, is so separate from the game that they play up to that point, that it doesn't make sense to me. In my analogy above, at least field goals and foul shots are part of the normal game. 

Maybe a better analogy would be deciding a football game by which QB is better at the 'throw the ball through the tire' carnival game

 

[Tyrus]

Seems to me both teams had the same opportunity within the rules, one prevailed. No, you can't have another hand, you have to keep the cards your dealt. It iz what it iz, thems the rules

[MacKenzie]

It is true both teams have the same opportunity, but we are a team and we should win or loose as a team. Sure it would have been nice if Canada had won for me but I didn't want it to be the way it was. The US did win the gold medal but "they" didn't beat us. I guess I would have been happier if we had been beaten by the team and vice versa. I want a team win.  

[Tyrus]

15 minutes ago, MacKenzie said:

It is true both teams have the same opportunity, but we are a team and we should win or loose as a team. Sure it would have been nice if Canada had won for me but I didn't want it to be the way it was. The US did win the gold medal but "they" didn't beat us. I guess I would have been happier if we had been beaten by the team and vice versa. I want a team win.  

Well if the Pats had another 30 seconds the game may have been different. Sorry Mac, don't work that way. Hey, you can look forward to the rematch, redemption is only a short 4 years away.

[MacKenzie]

Well if the Pats had another 30 seconds the game may have been different. Sorry Mac, don't work that way. Hey, you can look forward to the rematch, redemption is only a short 4 years away.

Really I just want the best "team" to win no matter who it is. I didn't want my team to win with a shoot out.

[cschaaf]

Yep, I'm not arguing the fact that everyone knew the rules going into the game and that the rules were followed to the letter. I'm just saying I wish they wouldn't end an amazing game they way they do.

I know some people love the shootout, it creates it's own tension, but I've never been a fan.

 

[Tyrus]

Just now, MacKenzie said:

Just now, Tyrus said:

Well if the Pats had another 30 seconds the game may have been different. Sorry Mac, don't work that way. Hey, you can look forward to the rematch, redemption is only a short 4 years away.

Really I just want the best "team" to win no matter who it is. I didn't want my team to win with a shoot out.

You must be familiar the old adage, You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  How about, It's water over the bridge. 

[Paul]

4 hours ago, Tyrus said:

You must be familiar the old adage, You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

And here all these years I thought it was, "You can lead a horse to water, but don't push it in...because nothing smells as bad as a wet horse!!

[Tyrus]

In sports as a player you shake hands after every game, win or loose it's on to the next game. Good sportsmanship. As a fan we tend to pick it apart..understandable. Like everything else it settles into place. There can only be one winner

[tony b]

20 hours ago, cschaaf said:

Maybe a better analogy would be deciding a football game by which QB is better at the 'throw the ball through the tire' carnival game

Indeed.

If we could set the rules, my vote would be for something close to what they already do with the 1st OT - cut the teams down to 4-on-4 (not counting the goalies), if still tied after 5 minutes, another 5 min OT, but 3-on-3, etc., until somebody scores (sudden death).

[Tyrus]

Toney, If the shoe were on the other foot would the conversation be different. When Jesse James of the Steelers bobbled the ball in the end zone and it was called a "no catch" it was because the rules stated so. Nothing like that happened here, it's all smoke and deflection. And this is where I disagree, when the team that wins by the rules is questioned for nothing they have done because inevitably that is what your doing, you diminish that winnings team their turn in the spotlight and that's what I call unfair.

[cschaaf]

8 hours ago, tony b said:

Indeed.

If we could set the rules, my vote would be for something close to what they already do with the 1st OT - cut the teams down to 4-on-4 (not counting the goalies), if still tied after 5 minutes, another 5 min OT, but 3-on-3, etc., until somebody scores (sudden death).

I think the NHL discussed that at some point, but went with the regular season shootout. If they want to avoid ties, it's probably the best solution. I'd still rather see a tie.  

That would be a better solution in the Olympic finals than the current shootout format, IMO.

 

[Tyrus]

The game was invented in Canada, the rules were agreed to and made in Canada. com'on man what don't u c. The US Women's Hockey Team beat Canada and history will show it.  Change the rules ok, but don't recognize the winner. Poor looser. Excuses.............done

 

[Aussie Ora]

At the end of the day I enjoyed the game and congrats to team U.S.A.

Outback kamado Bar and Grill

[cschaaf]

13 hours ago, Tyrus said:

The game was invented in Canada, the rules were agreed to and made in Canada. com'on man what don't u c. The US Women's Hockey Team beat Canada and history will show it.  Change the rules ok, but don't recognize the winner. Poor looser. Excuses.............done

 

There was no poor loser'ness' in this thread. Everyone recognized the US won, and no one was suggesting it should be scrubbed from the record books.

No one was crying foul, saying the rules changed, saying the rules were wrongly interpreted, or making any excuses. No one was trying to take anything away from the US women - or the Canadian women. 

We were just discussing if we liked the shootout or not. 

I didn't really care who won or lost that game, I just wanted to see a good game. I'm a fan of an NHL team and I like it better when they win, but overall, I am a hockey fan and I have opinions on what I think is right or wrong for the game. I'm not right, I'm not wrong; they are just my opinions.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by cschaaf