Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: At once to the penalty shooting?!

  1. #1
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Huittinen, Finland
    Posts
    463

    At once to the penalty shooting?!

    Hello you all!

    I have been thinking, that in the future there should be the same system as in basket ball; no extra period, but starting immediately penalty shots after the tied game.

    Anything for and against this idea?!

    All the best
    Jukka

  2. #2
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    No.
    the current system in ihwc is ok, altough i don't like 4 on 4 game in OT, especially in europe large ice surface. I can stand also the playoff system with 10 min OT (4 on 4) and a penalty shots.. but it's still wrong way to decide games anyway.

  3. #3
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Agreed. Let them have one more crack at finding a winner under normal game rules before going to penalty shots.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  4. #4
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    412
    No !!! Penalty shots are a pathetic way to end a game. There is zero correlation to what transpired prior. I'd prefer sudden death for the elimination round and as much OT as the schedule will bear in prior rounds.

  5. #5
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    You can't do sudden death when you aren't playing the same team the next day. Penalty shots may not be ideal, but I'd rather have them than have a final where the day before one team played 4 OT periods and one team that cruised to a 4-0 victory.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  6. #6
    IHF Staff
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,144
    Not sure I'd say. This could have a nice effect. Without a shoot out the incentive to carry a knock out game to (and deep into) OT by defensive play gets lower because the teams know that the invetible fatigue they will suffer diminishes their chances in the next round of the tournament. This will strengthen the incentives to win the game within regulation time. Furthermore, if seeding from the round robin stage preceeding the knock out stage is done top versus bottom also the incentives to enter the ko stage as highly ranked as possible are strengthened because not only the probability to advance increases (you will be facing a weaker team - or at least a team with a worse record) but also the expected cost of advancing in terms of fatigue decreases because you are less likely to go into a power draining OT marathon.

    I am very sympathetic about this idea. As I see it raising the expected cost of overly defensive play by eliminating shoot outs unambiguously strengthens the incentive to win in regulation time which is imho a good thing. There's few rule maipulations coming to my mind that are capable of doing so (the switch to the 3 point rule in football for instance is theoretically and empirically doubtful to have had an effect on pushing offensive play).

    Thanks for the inspiration guys ;-)

  7. #7
    IHF Member Tobias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Posts
    2,510
    No i don't like the idea. shootout is just too random. i think the current system from the IHWC is nice and then just no shootout for the important games.

  8. #8
    IHF Member ahtikullervo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    673
    Shootouts are thrillers. I do not like them too much, but there is no better solution yet.
    Brian Burke: "True leaders don’t need a letter on their chest. They still lead. Teemu is like that."

  9. #9
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,110
    I fully agree with Graham. In the final game of the elite tournaments, perhaps that can go into a never-ending OT series, but otherwise it just isn't feasible or fair.
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  10. #10
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    412
    I have 2 big problems with an automatic shootout. Assuming a tie game in the 3rd period, (some) weaker teams will assume a defensive shell knowing they have a 50-50 chance in a shootout. So instead of exciting 3rd period action with both teams pressing for a W we have a boring lethargic finish followed by essentially a coin toss.

    I never feel much satisfaction when my teams wins a shootout. More like relief that "hey we got lucky". On the other hand losing a shootout, especially for the stronger team, is like getting robbed.

    I understand extended OT is impractical for the reasons listed but auto-shootout will lead to more dull uninspired hockey.

  11. #11
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    Quote Originally Posted by RexKramer View Post
    Not sure I'd say. This could have a nice effect. Without a shoot out the incentive to carry a knock out game to (and deep into) OT by defensive play gets lower because the teams know that the invetible fatigue they will suffer diminishes their chances in the next round of the tournament. This will strengthen the incentives to win the game within regulation time. Furthermore, if seeding from the round robin stage preceeding the knock out stage is done top versus bottom also the incentives to enter the ko stage as highly ranked as possible are strengthened because not only the probability to advance increases (you will be facing a weaker team - or at least a team with a worse record) but also the expected cost of advancing in terms of fatigue decreases because you are less likely to go into a power draining OT marathon.

    I am very sympathetic about this idea. As I see it raising the expected cost of overly defensive play by eliminating shoot outs unambiguously strengthens the incentive to win in regulation time which is imho a good thing. There's few rule maipulations coming to my mind that are capable of doing so (the switch to the 3 point rule in football for instance is theoretically and empirically doubtful to have had an effect on pushing offensive play).

    Thanks for the inspiration guys ;-)
    I'm with you on this, but I'll suggest that the 5min-OT-then-shootout should still be kept for preliminary/qualifying round games, as well as the lower-division round robin tournaments.
    However, for those shootouts, I want to see teams have to go through their entire roster before a player can shoot a second time. Or, rather, players can only shoot a second time once one of the two teams has exhausted their entire roster (to make it fair to teams with larger rosters). That way instead of the shootout being goalie vs the top-3 shooters on one team, if the shootout goes long at least it does become more of a test of a team's depth (ability to score potentially into the third-line players).

  12. #12
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    Shootouts take the concept of hockey as a team sport and throw it down the toilet.

    The entire concept of team play becomes meaningless.

    The position of defenseman becomes meaningless.

    On top of that, watching the odd game that goes to triple overtime or beyond is FAR more dramatic, tense and exciting than a shootout.

    I had posted a day or two ago over in the Stanley Cup Finals thread that the NHL should NEVER allow the shootout to ruin the Stanley Cup playoffs, and I stand by that.

  13. #13
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber View Post
    On top of that, watching the odd game that goes to triple overtime or beyond is FAR more dramatic, tense and exciting than a shootout.

    I had posted a day or two ago over in the Stanley Cup Finals thread that the NHL should NEVER allow the shootout to ruin the Stanley Cup playoffs, and I stand by that.
    Of course. But at least for regular season games the NHL has a far superior shootout system to the IIHF's.
    That being said, the IIHF has a far superior point/standings system to the NHL's as well... 3-2-1-0, not 2-2-1-0.

  14. #14
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    "I want to see teams have to go through their entire roster before a player can shoot a second time."

    The fact that the IIHF does not do this is literally insane. One of the stupidest things ever.

  15. #15
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber View Post
    "I want to see teams have to go through their entire roster before a player can shoot a second time."

    The fact that the IIHF does not do this is literally insane. One of the stupidest things ever.
    Agreed, as Steigs pointed out, it helps teams who have a more complete scoring threat instead of just one or two snipers (see teams with two lines and roster requirement fillers).

    Another thing the IIHF should do is freeze the game statistics at the end of overtime. It is silly a goalie gets a goal against (and not even an extra shot against) because he allowed the game winning goal. Shootout statistics should go into a seperate statistical category. I'd also like to see the game summaries include a full list of the shooters and the outcome of each shot. But above all else, as said before, more than 3 skaters should represent the team if it goes to extra shots.
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  16. #16
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by KazakhEagles View Post
    Another thing the IIHF should do is freeze the game statistics at the end of overtime. It is silly a goalie gets a goal against (and not even an extra shot against) because he allowed the game winning goal. Shootout statistics should go into a seperate statistical category.
    I agree in principal. Certainly, I believe that ice hockey is a 60-minute game, and game-based statistics (win/loss/tie, shut-out) should be based on the first 60 minutes only. I think it is ridiculous that if the first goal of the game isn't scored until the 4th period of overtime that, despite having played 2 games worth of time without conceding a goal, one of the netminders doesn't get a shut-out.

    However, I don't believe that penalties should be unfrozen. If the player is finishing the game in either the dressing room or on the penalty bench, then they should not be allowed to take part in the shoot-out. Otherwise, you are allowing teams to go into all out thuggery in the closing seconds of the game, safe in the knowledge that any resultant powerplays will only last a matter of a few seconds.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  17. #17
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    412
    One other comment on shootouts....I believe the Oilers had the best NHL record in shootouts yet didn't even make the playoffs. This is a datapoint supporting the argument that shootouts are not representative of a teams overall strength and therefore should be avoided in meaningful games.

  18. #18
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    "should avoided in meaningful games"...

    ... as long as it does not become the main factor in deciding who wins the following game.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  19. #19
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    "Certainly, I believe that ice hockey is a 60-minute game, and game-based statistics (win/loss/tie, shut-out) should be based on the first 60 minutes only. I think it is ridiculous that if the first goal of the game isn't scored until the 4th period of overtime that, despite having played 2 games worth of time without conceding a goal, one of the netminders doesn't get a shut-out."

    I disagree here......overtime is a part of the game. The stats from OT should (and in the NHL, do) count with the regular game stats.

    The NHL does have shootouts as a completely separate statistical category, which I agree with, as the shootout - unlike overtime - is not really hockey.

  20. #20
    IHF Staff Trim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Xingping, Shaanxi Province, China
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    However, I don't believe that penalties should be unfrozen. If the player is finishing the game in either the dressing room or on the penalty bench, then they should not be allowed to take part in the shoot-out.
    I definately agree and penalised players should be kept out of the shootout as the rules are now, if I remember correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber
    I disagree here......overtime is a part of the game. The stats from OT should (and in the NHL, do) count with the regular game stats.

    The NHL does have shootouts as a completely separate statistical category, which I agree with, as the shootout - unlike overtime - is not really hockey.
    A purist could argue that 4-on-4 hockey is not hockey, but the same 5-on-5 principles apply for the most part. Shootouts are a crap shoot and shouldn't count.

    As Graham said, it is difficult to lose a shutout in the 4th OT, but at least it is still hockey, not an artificial way to determine the winner.
    Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!

    I'm the hole formerly known as KazakhEagles

  21. #21
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    I don't believe that OT is a part of the game. I believe that hockey lasts exactly 60 minutes and that anything that you add, either because you need to select only 1 team to go forward or simply because you don't like draws (a stance that I really struggle to understand), is supplemental to the game and not a part of the game.

    Penalised players are kept out, although I've heard more than one opinion from within the NHL teams that the rule should be changed.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

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
  •