my proposed OT
Olivier Camet
the ice. 4 on 4 and both teams get no points for a tie are great ideas.
Ollie
JRohm68012 wrote:
> How about this for encouraging playing for wins in OT:
>
> -- Resurface the ice after 3rd period
> -- 10 minute OT period
> -- Four on Four
> -- Goalies CANNOT use sticks
> -- A tie would count as a LOSS for both teams.
>
> Notice that this wouldn't exactly encourage playing for OT late in regulation
> time either I don't think. Comments?
Lauri Tarkkonen
>All your ideas are valid except for the no stick for the goalie and resurfacing
>the ice. 4 on 4 and both teams get no points for a tie are great ideas.
If four against four is such a good idea, why do they cancel
simultaneous penalties in most cases and why do they play with
five skates against five skates regularly.
They once removed the rower from the game, now they have to remove
one winger, so they cannot play left wing lock anymore.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
Will MacEwen
Lauri Tarkkonen wrote in message <7m9m10$o...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
To acknowledge the rower's place in the game, maybe in OT the goalie could
use an oar.
>
Kevin Sargent
Lauri Tarkkonen <tark...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:7m9m10$o...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI...
> In <3787D966...@sympatico.ca> Olivier Camet
<olivie...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>
> >All your ideas are valid except for the no stick for the goalie and
resurfacing
> >the ice. 4 on 4 and both teams get no points for a tie are great ideas.
like saying a shortstop can't use his glove. As for resurfacing the ice,
that is fine. Concerning the points distribution, only giving points for a
win is obviously motivation to play hard, but it seems to me that it would
be the fans who would feel gipped after going to see a tie game in which
neither team came out ahead of where they were before. I know it is not
THAT much different from 1 point each, but it's still a point. If they are
going to change the point system, I would have to agree with what the league
has chosen, in that each teams gets one point automatically and the OT
winner gets a second point. At least this way they each have something, and
nothing to lose by going all out.
> If four against four is such a good idea, why do they cancel
> simultaneous penalties in most cases and why do they play with
> five skates against five skates regularly.
The reason they put in the coincidental penalty rule is because the
dynasties of the earlier years would benefit from the 4 on 4 situation. One
example is the Oilers team of the 80s... there was not team in the league
that could put 4 better skaters on the ice. So, all they had to do was send
their thug out to get into a fight and draw one of the other players off the
ice, then they would dominate.
Dynasties in professional sports are all but a thing of the past. Still,
this type of situation would benefit the stronger team, but nothing like it
was before.
--
Kevin Sargent
ksar...@NOSPAM.videotron.ca
Montreal, Quebec
UIN 1431766
(Remove the *NOSPAM* to reply)
Eclectic Ed
regular season game.
Sincerly,
EDWARD D.WEBB
edwardo...@webtv.net