Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Bonin21 View Post
    It wasn't sudden death?
    That is correct. Through the 1936-37 season overtime consisted of a 10-minute overtime and if still tied a second 10-minute overtime. Starting in 1937-38 overtime was reduced to a single 10-minute overtime and starting with the 1949-50 season a single 10-minute sudden death overtime period was played. Failure to played overtime was to result in a forfeit. These are NCAA Ice Hockey Rules and I have no idea what the NHL or other leagues used.

    Sean

    P.S. There also used to be one minute penalties.

    Leave a comment:


  • Split-N
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by UncleRay View Post
    ...I'm not a fan of changing the number of players on the ice for overtimes. Teams are built in different ways to become what they are. Playing HS soccer a generation ago we were the eighth-place team with the all-conference goalie playing the number one team. After a certain amount of OT, the gimmick was to play without goalies, and we were seriously disadvantaged. Why not play without the team's top goal scorer? It makes as much sense. The game is set to play 5-on-5 (if you'd like to make an argument that we should go to 4-on-4 for the full 60, because of size, speed, and skill, then go ahead, but...) and changing that changes the very fiber of the game. If ties are unacceptable, keep playing 5-on-5 until a goal is scored or a hole is worn through the ice. However, if ties are acceptable (the camp I am in), then accept the tie and move on.
    THIS!!! All of it. And +1 infinite times over.

    To paraphrase a couple of points WeAreNDHockey made (see Post #25), the number of players on the ice is not and never has been a contributing reason for the decrease in scoring. Outrageously oversized goalie equipment and the mindset of playing to not be scored on (instead of to score) are the real reasons why we're having this discussion in the first place.

    WRT the former, the NHL and primary governing bodies (USA Hockey, Hockey Canada, and the impotent IIHF) all turned a blind eye while goalie equipment was being pumped up, all of them blithely changing their rules to accommodate the manufacturers. Anybody besides me want to believe that $$$$ changed hands while this was going on?

    WRT to the latter, playing to not be scored on is a prime example of what I call the soccer-ization of ice hockey. I'll probably get hate mail for this but despite my best efforts to come to appreciate soccer, it bores me to tears. Except for relatively rare bursts of energy, soccer strikes me just a bunch of people standing around playing keep-away and watching the clock run. Hockey coaches seem to have picked up on that and the result is endless dump-and-chase-and-wait-for-a-break and its defensive counterpart, the neutral zone trap.

    So let soccer be soccer, and if it likes that style of play and thinks penalty kicks are the way to decide matches, then so be it. But let's get hockey back to being hockey. And if one team isn't better than the other on a given night, then, also, so be it. The only fair and equitable outcome is a tie on the scoreboard and a standings point for each team, not gimmick-laden OTs and [barf] shootouts.
    Last edited by Split-N; 06-12-2016, 04:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    Originally posted by Patman View Post
    The only sane way is to make OT wins worth less... But the powers that be tend to offer the nonsense idea that overtime games should be worth more.

    This only leads to bad things
    If you're implementing OT differently that regulation, then you have to use a 3-2-1-0 points system. And, of ties are still allowed, the an OT tie should be worth less than a regulation victory.

    Leave a comment:


  • UncleRay
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    I don't understand why a goal in the final two minutes of a period should be handled any differently than any other goal. They all count the same. And a "poor call" in the sixth minute can change the outcome of a game just as surely as one in the nineteenth.

    I'm not a fan of changing the number of players on the ice for overtimes. Teams are built in different ways to become what they are. Playing HS soccer a generation ago we were the eighth-place team with the all-conference goalie playing the number one team. After a certain amount of OT, the gimmick was to play without goalies, and we were seriously disadvantaged. Why not play without the team's top goal scorer? It makes as much sense. The game is set to play 5-on-5 (if you'd like to make an argument that we should go to 4-on-4 for the full 60, because of size, speed, and skill, then go ahead, but...) and changing that changes the very fiber of the game. If ties are unacceptable, keep playing 5-on-5 until a goal is scored or a hole is worn through the ice. However, if ties are acceptable (the camp I am in), then accept the tie and move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
    Any of our RPI experts have an idea how they will do this? Honestly this seems bigger than switching to 4 v 4 OT to me.
    The only sane way is to make OT wins worth less... But the powers that be tend to offer the nonsense idea that overtime games should be worth more.

    This only leads to bad things
    Last edited by Patman; 06-12-2016, 02:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    What a terrible idea

    Leave a comment:


  • CLS
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Glad this discussion is coming up in “neutral ice” – that is not because a team I root for just took advantage of/got screwed by one of the rules.

    Originally posted by purpleinnebraska View Post
    Have we learned nothing from the NHL's offsides challenges? Zapruder film breakdowns of whether a skate might have been in the air or on the ice, with all energy drained out of the building while fans sit around. Fabulous. We're paying 2 linesmen to watch for that. Let them do their jobs
    Absolutely. And of course it always happens in a critical situation. The fact that a critical goal might get called back is a bigger deal than a timeout, so coaches are incentivised to challenge it. The last several challenges that I've seen have been very close plays; e.g. was a player's blade an eighth of an inch off the ice or not? Very hard to tell in stop motion, let alone real time. Defenders are not disadvantaged by the lack of a call; they have to play like it's onside. It's not like spending time on whether a goal was scored or not. Something – an offensive player making a great play, a defender or goalie screwing up – had to happen for the goal to get scored.


    I'm also not in favor of shootouts, and I don't have problem with ties, but I kind of like 3:3 and 4:4. Six is not a magic number; if I recall correctly, hockey was once played with seven. The fact that players are larger, faster, and have lighter equipment (especially skates) means that five skaters on the ice makes the ice seem cluttered at times, especially in college tournaments and in the NHL playoffs, when players are really playing defense.
    Last edited by CLS; 06-12-2016, 08:35 PM. Reason: spelling

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonin21
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    It wasn't sudden death?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by LordofBrewtown View Post
    100% agree. Reduce the goalie pads, instruct the officials to actually start enforcing interference/obstruction, and that should improve scoring. I'd prefer they scrap shootouts and OT altogether. If you are tied after 60, it's a tie.
    Overtime has existed from the start. Maybe we should go back to full overtime periods like they had back then, none of this sudden death crap.

    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • LordofBrewtown
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Bill View Post
    Goalies have generally become bigger and more athletic in the last decade or two. That plus the huge size of goalie pads (and huge baggy jerseys on some goalies) in the same time frame has definitely made scoring tougher. Defensive systems have generally become much better also. To me, the low hanging fruit solution to increasing scoring and reducing the number of ties is to limit the size of goalie pads and see what impact that has. With the technology we have these days, safety shouldn't be an issue. Personally, I have no problem with ties.
    100% agree. Reduce the goalie pads, instruct the officials to actually start enforcing interference/obstruction, and that should improve scoring. I'd prefer they scrap shootouts and OT altogether. If you are tied after 60, it's a tie.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Really, an overtime loss thing? Just end the game after 60 minutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreNDHockey
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Bill View Post
    Goalies have generally become bigger and more athletic in the last decade or two. That plus the huge size of goalie pads (and huge baggy jerseys on some goalies) in the same time frame has definitely made scoring tougher. Defensive systems have generally become much better also. To me, the low hanging fruit solution to increasing scoring and reducing the number of ties is to limit the size of goalie pads and see what impact that has. With the technology we have these days, safety shouldn't be an issue. Personally, I have no problem with ties.
    The decrease in scoring is like a vicious cycle IMO.

    Larger goalie equipment started us down the road. As goal scoring decreased with no real way to reverse the trend (the more net you cover the less chance you have to score, as is the case as the equipment gets bigger and bigger) it becomes even more necessary to keep the other team off the board. So you have "systems" in hockey that are designed only to allow the five skaters on the ice to prevent offense, not generate it. So then you have coaches and clinics dedicated solely to goaltending so the goalies become even more skilled, because without a top flight goaltender your team doesn't just struggle, it sucks mercilessly. When all of that is still not enough to prevent the other team from scoring 3 goals, you have every skater on the ice falling down to block shots (something that did not happen regularly years ago because the safety equipment below the neck wasn't protective enough and even college players did not wear facial protection). Then when 3 goals becomes too high a bar for some teams, players began finding the need to take only "perfect" shots, so as not to waste an offensive possession. So they aim for only the tiniest fraction of the net, the little parts around the upper and lower corners where a puck might sneak past the Michelin Man goalie. Of course many of those shots miss the net entirely (if the happen to make it passed the sprawled body of every single forward on every single team who blocks a shot as his teammates on the bench pound their sticks on the boards in appreciative salute) and carom right out of the attack zone, ending the offensive opportunity anyway. 40 years ago a team did not have to attempt 50 or 60 shots to see 25 reach the net. Now they do. 15 or 20 miss the mark and 10 or 15 are are blocked every single game.

    So I say go back to the beginning. Goalie gear should be no larger than needed than to offer sufficient protection to the player. They've got the big glove, the big blocker and the big stick. Plus they can legally cover the puck in the crease. They shouldn't need to wear padding that as the years have gone by have allowed them to effectively cover most of the 6X4 open space of the net without moving. The technology DOES exist for this to happen, for the goalie gear to be much smaller yet off the same safety protection. Make the goalies look proportionally in 2016 like they did in 1980 and watch the increase in scoring. At some point then the focus will become on scoring one more goal than the other guy instead of preventing them from scoring one more than you. That may sound like the same goal but boy oh boy is it not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Buckeye22
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Split-N View Post
    I disagree with any and all things that compromise the legitimacy of the game. Hockey games are meant to be decided by competition between two teams consisting of five skaters and a goaltender, notwithstanding penalties. Anything else is a gimmick. And the shootout IMO is the hockey equivalent of a crime against humanity. If the NHL wants to prostitute itself to gimmickry in the name of entertainment, that doesn't mean the NCAA should do the same.

    Why is it so hard to accept the premise that on a given day, one team might not be better than the other and that a tie is the only fair and proper final result?
    I completely agree. If you've played to earn a tie, you should get one. You shouldn't have to accept a loss based off of a skills competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    I only have limited seasonal results quickly available to me, but here is the overtime information for what I do have. Tie games that did not use overtime are not included.

    1975-76
    580 games played
    65 overtime games (11.2 %)
    2 multiple overtime games
    17 tie games (2.9 % of all games; 26.1 % of overtime games)
    19 games tied after one overtime (3.3 % of all games; 29.2 % of overtime games)

    9.828 scoring average, both teams per game
    4.914 scoring average, one team
    3.272 average margin of victory

    1984-85
    865 games played
    115 overtime games (13.3 %)
    4 multiple overtime games
    32 tie games (3.7 % of all games; 27.8 % of overtime games)
    36 games tied after one overtime (4.2 % of all games; 31.3 % of overtime games)

    8.662 scoring average, both teams per game
    4.331 scoring average, one team
    2.975 average margin of victory

    1998-99
    996 games played
    157 overtime games (15.8 %)
    2 multiple overtime games
    90 tie games (9.0 % of all games; 57.3 % of overtime games)
    92 games tied after one overtime (9.2 % of all games; 58.6 % of overtime games)

    6.436 scoring average, both teams per game
    3.218 scoring average, one team
    2.432 average margin of victory

    2013-14
    1111 games played
    194 overtime games (17.5%)
    8 multiple overtime games
    113 tie games (10.2 % of all games; 58.3% of overtime games)
    121 games tied after one overtime (10.9 % of all games; 62.4 % of overtime games)

    5.637 scoring average, both teams per game
    2.819 scoring average, one team
    2.125 average margin of victory

    2014-15
    1110 games played
    209 overtime games (18.8 %)
    9 multiple overtime games
    112 tie games (10.1 % of all games; 53.6 % of overtime games)
    121 games tied after one overtime (10.9 % of all games; 57.9 % of overtime games)

    5.412 scoring average, both teams per game
    2.706 scoring average, one team
    2.150 average margin of victory

    2015-16
    1127 games
    244 overtime games (21.7 %)
    6 multiple overtime games
    142 tie games (12.6 % of all games; 58.2 % of overtime games)
    148 games tied after one overtime (13.3 % of all games; 60.7 % of overtime games)

    5.590 scoring average, both teams per game
    2.795 scoring average, one team
    2.140 average margin of victory

    What can be seen is that the number of overtime games has doubled, while the number of tie games has quadrupled. The number of overtime games is likely a result of better defense and goaltending leading to less scoring, but the increase in tie games is also due in part to reducing the overtime period from 10 to 5 minutes. Also, over the past three seasons average scoring and margin of victory has been pretty consistent, but overtime games have continued to increase. So, something more than just scoring is leading to more overtime games.

    Sean
    Goalies have generally become bigger and more athletic in the last decade or two. That plus the huge size of goalie pads (and huge baggy jerseys on some goalies) in the same time frame has definitely made scoring tougher. Defensive systems have generally become much better also. To me, the low hanging fruit solution to increasing scoring and reducing the number of ties is to limit the size of goalie pads and see what impact that has. With the technology we have these days, safety shouldn't be an issue. Personally, I have no problem with ties.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    Of course if you really want to get rid of shootouts, get rid of ties. And if you want to get rid of ties, find an actual way to increase scoring. During the early era of Notre Dame hockey (1970/71-1982/83) an average of 4 games went beyond regulation per season. In the more modern era since returning to conference affiliated D1 play, (1992/93-2015/16) they have averaged 6.6 games going more than 60 minutes, a 65% increase. Scoring in the 1970s and 80s was substantially higher than it is today. This season's 10 OT games is a total never exceeded and equaled only once (1999/00) in 37 seasons worth of top level hockey.
    I only have limited seasonal results quickly available to me, but here is the overtime information for what I do have. Tie games that did not use overtime are not included.

    1975-76
    580 games played
    65 overtime games (11.2 %)
    2 multiple overtime games
    17 tie games (2.9 % of all games; 26.1 % of overtime games)
    19 games tied after one overtime (3.3 % of all games; 29.2 % of overtime games)

    9.828 scoring average, both teams per game
    4.914 scoring average, one team
    3.272 average margin of victory

    1984-85
    865 games played
    115 overtime games (13.3 %)
    4 multiple overtime games
    32 tie games (3.7 % of all games; 27.8 % of overtime games)
    36 games tied after one overtime (4.2 % of all games; 31.3 % of overtime games)

    8.662 scoring average, both teams per game
    4.331 scoring average, one team
    2.975 average margin of victory

    1998-99
    996 games played
    157 overtime games (15.8 %)
    2 multiple overtime games
    90 tie games (9.0 % of all games; 57.3 % of overtime games)
    92 games tied after one overtime (9.2 % of all games; 58.6 % of overtime games)

    6.436 scoring average, both teams per game
    3.218 scoring average, one team
    2.432 average margin of victory

    2013-14
    1111 games played
    194 overtime games (17.5%)
    8 multiple overtime games
    113 tie games (10.2 % of all games; 58.3% of overtime games)
    121 games tied after one overtime (10.9 % of all games; 62.4 % of overtime games)

    5.637 scoring average, both teams per game
    2.819 scoring average, one team
    2.125 average margin of victory

    2014-15
    1110 games played
    209 overtime games (18.8 %)
    9 multiple overtime games
    112 tie games (10.1 % of all games; 53.6 % of overtime games)
    121 games tied after one overtime (10.9 % of all games; 57.9 % of overtime games)

    5.412 scoring average, both teams per game
    2.706 scoring average, one team
    2.150 average margin of victory

    2015-16
    1127 games
    244 overtime games (21.7 %)
    6 multiple overtime games
    142 tie games (12.6 % of all games; 58.2 % of overtime games)
    148 games tied after one overtime (13.3 % of all games; 60.7 % of overtime games)

    5.590 scoring average, both teams per game
    2.795 scoring average, one team
    2.140 average margin of victory

    What can be seen is that the number of overtime games has doubled, while the number of tie games has quadrupled. The number of overtime games is likely a result of better defense and goaltending leading to less scoring, but the increase in tie games is also due in part to reducing the overtime period from 10 to 5 minutes. Also, over the past three seasons average scoring and margin of victory has been pretty consistent, but overtime games have continued to increase. So, something more than just scoring is leading to more overtime games.

    Sean

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X