Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 151 to 161 of 161

Thread: 2017 iihf wc

  1. #151
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ref72 View Post
    Congrats Sweden. Hate to lose in a penalty shot contest but at least in that contest, there was no question who performed it better
    If this was the Olympics, Henrik Lundqvist would have been Sweden's first string goalie, without a doubt.
    The same can't be said for Calvin Pickard.
    With all due respect to Mr. Pickard (who played well in this game and tournament) he wouldn't even be the 4th choice.
    So when the game went to a shoot out I thought it was going to be King Henry time and ultimately that's precisely what happened.
    It was nice to see Henrik play on a championship team with his twin brother Joel.
    After yet another Stanley Cup heartbreak, it was a great way to end the year for perhaps the best Swedish netminder ever.

  2. #152
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Heatleysucks View Post
    Gold?
    Only in Trump's world you are awarded gold by winning the bronze medal game.
    Conesy's alternative facts: Russia didn't blow the game against Canada and thus won gold

    Conesy's second alternative fact: he doesn't mistake gold with bronze and instead, this was testing your reading comprehension
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  3. #153
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Conesy View Post
    Conesy's alternative facts
    Well played, Conesy.

    The hate of the shootout is popping up more and more but I suppose the important part is that means we are having more closely-contested games than before and that's the important part. The IIHF has changed overtime rules for next year as well so hopefully overtime will be enough.
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  4. #154
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Trim View Post
    Well played, Conesy.

    The hate of the shootout is popping up more and more but I suppose the important part is that means we are having more closely-contested games than before and that's the important part. The IIHF has changed overtime rules for next year as well so hopefully overtime will be enough.
    I'd rather have a ten minute 3 on 3 OT than any shoot out be it 3 shooters or five.
    The NHL's 3 on 3 OT is only 5 minutes long yet it has been effective in drastically cutting down on the number of shoot outs needed to decide games.
    If the IIHF would adapt a 10 minute 3 on 3 OT, surely it would do the trick.
    The nature of 3 on 3 leads to inevitable mistakes which leads to scoring opportunities you wouldn't get 5 on 5.
    Bottom line, everyone would prefer to see a championship game decided during game play.

  5. #155
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    2,779
    Well, given that Europeans are accustomed to shoot outs in our most popular sport, football, I am not culturally disinclined against that method of deciding even the most important matches like the World Cup finals. FIFA tried to implement "sudden death" (it called it "golden goal") in the overtime and soon abandoned it. It simply went against the tradition.

    Just because North Americans are culturally raised to despise ties and shoot outs doesn't mean that the rest of the world must follow through. Unfortunately, whatever NHL comes with, IIHF adopts within a year or two (sometimes it's good stuff like prohibition of line change after the icing) for better or worse. As the years go by, IIHF plays more and more the role of the lap dog to NHL only to be humiliated by the NHL with the boycott of the Olympics.

  6. #156
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Drax View Post
    Just because North Americans are culturally raised to despise ties and shoot outs doesn't mean that the rest of the world must follow through. Unfortunately, whatever NHL comes with, IIHF adopts within a year or two (sometimes it's good stuff like prohibition of line change after the icing) for better or worse. As the years go by, IIHF plays more and more the role of the lap dog to NHL only to be humiliated by the NHL with the boycott of the Olympics.
    Hold on, where do you get off blaming us North Americans for solely 'despising' shoot outs?
    Seriously, do you know anyone who 'enjoys' a shootout or penalty kicks?
    Penalty kicks are dreaded by footballers and supporters alike...unless you take perverse pleasure in seeing the emotional agony it causes them.
    Just ask Roberto Baggio who scored thirty goals for Italy in his fine career.
    But he will be remembered by most for punting his penalty kick in the 1994 World Cup, giving the championship to Brazil.

    Wherever possible, shoot outs should be avoided.
    The solution, I think, is rather simple.
    If the IOC went to a 3 on 3 OT for a 20 minute period in the GMG instead of the current 5 on 5, the game surely will be decided by game actions.
    If, after 20 minutes of wide open hockey, the game somehow remains tied, then bring on the shoot out.

  7. #157
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Heatleysucks View Post

    Wherever possible, shoot outs should be avoided.
    The solution, I think, is rather simple.
    If the IOC went to a 3 on 3 OT for a 20 minute period in the GMG instead of the current 5 on 5, the game surely will be decided by game actions.
    If, after 20 minutes of wide open hockey, the game somehow remains tied, then bring on the shoot out.
    I'm salivating at the thought of that 3 on 3 hockey. Seriously, how great would it be to see pure skill on large ice?
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  8. #158
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Conesy View Post
    I'm salivating at the thought of that 3 on 3 hockey. Seriously, how great would it be to see pure skill on large ice?
    BTW, I just noticed I misspoke in my last post.
    I should have said IIHF instead of IOC.
    I apologize for any inconvenience.

  9. #159
    IHF Member Bennison's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hagestad, Sweden
    Posts
    3,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Conesy View Post
    I'm salivating at the thought of that 3 on 3 hockey. Seriously, how great would it be to see pure skill on large ice?
    To me, 3-on-3 hockey is just as bad as a shoot out. In fact I think I prefer the suspense of a shootout. There is 1-on-1 skill instead of the more stamina-testing 3-on-3 "team" play.
    Cum bibam cervisiam gaudeo.

  10. #160
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Heatleysucks View Post
    Hold on, where do you get off blaming us North Americans for solely 'despising' shoot outs?
    Seriously, do you know anyone who 'enjoys' a shootout or penalty kicks?
    Penalty kicks are dreaded by footballers and supporters alike...unless you take perverse pleasure in seeing the emotional agony it causes them.
    Just ask Roberto Baggio who scored thirty goals for Italy in his fine career.
    But he will be remembered by most for punting his penalty kick in the 1994 World Cup, giving the championship to Brazil.

    Wherever possible, shoot outs should be avoided.
    The solution, I think, is rather simple.
    If the IOC went to a 3 on 3 OT for a 20 minute period in the GMG instead of the current 5 on 5, the game surely will be decided by game actions.
    If, after 20 minutes of wide open hockey, the game somehow remains tied, then bring on the shoot out.
    Actually, if it were up for me, I'd abolish overtime in football. Most of the time it's boring to watch two teams taking great efforts not to make a mistake. Basically, if two teams can't determine a winner within a proscribed time, the decision should be made quickly.

    To get back to hockey, I see two or more overtime periods as agony not as something I'd enjoy in advance. If the match starts at 8 pm on the workday, when am I going to get home after two OT periods and how am I going to look like at work? I don't think TV broadcasters are overly fond of overtimes either.

    The new 3 on 3 OT rule looks more like practice game that players tend to play at the end of the practice or after the end of the season. There are no defenders nor forwards, everybody has to cover his own counterpart and sooner or later someone's going to make a mistake and suffer from 2 on 1 or 1 on 0 counterattack. I didn't like it the moment I saw it for the first time.

    Personnally, I have nothing against ties and would have let them back into hockey. There's nothing wrong with an even match ending in tie.

  11. #161
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Drax View Post

    The new 3 on 3 OT rule looks more like practice game that players tend to play at the end of the practice or after the end of the season. There are no defenders nor forwards, everybody has to cover his own counterpart and sooner or later someone's going to make a mistake and suffer from 2 on 1 or 1 on 0 counterattack. I didn't like it the moment I saw it for the first time.

    Personally, I have nothing against ties and would have let them back into hockey. There's nothing wrong with an even match ending in tie.
    I have no objections to a tied game in hockey...during the regular season.
    But the NHL owners were tired of hearing complaints over too many tied games so OT/shoot outs were implemented.
    Championship games are another matter.
    A winner has to be declared, unless you are willing to settle for co-champions, which obviously no one will accept.
    I think playing a 20 minute 5 on 5 overtime is pretty much an extension of the regular game.
    Teams will play cautiously, playing not to lose rather than play to win.
    With 3 on 3, it forces play to open up.
    Like you said, it is high risk, mistake prone hockey and sooner or later, a scoring chance will occur which is the whole point of it.
    It might seem like a practice game but at least it is still a game.
    Shoot outs, to me, are more of a practice exercise than 3 on 3.
    But after 20 minutes of 3 and 3 and the game is still not decided, then a shoot out decision is what both teams deserve.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •