Kyrou coasting in the ice in OT

[juan good eye]

3v3 and shootouts are dumb and should have no bearing on playoffs since neither is used come that time of year.

Continue giving both teams 1 pt for making it to OT which should encourage both teams to loosen up a bit more in OT.

Go 5v5 for 10 min: win, lose or draw

The only question: what should be ranked lower an OTL or draw (tie)? Maybe they are equal since they are both worth 1pt.

Sorry for going OT on OT. Trade Kyrou!

Yeah, in addition to the points I made, I like your suggestion for OT. 5 on 5 for 10 minutes, Win, lose or draw. And I would prefer the loser get 0 points and each team get 1 point for a tie.

I’m good with whatever encourages teams to NOT play too conservative at the end of regulation or OT while maintaining integrity of the game.

[juan good eye]

I hate OT loser points. That's why when I looked at the standings the other day, only 5 teams out of 30 were under .500. That's just stupid. Those need to go away.

And shootouts need to go away. That is not hockey. That would be like ending basketball games with a free throw shooting contest or a 3-point shooting contest. Or ending football games with a FG kicking contest.

I'd like to see 1 point for each team if there is no scoring in the 5-minute OT. And 2 points for the winner and 0 points for the loser in the 5-minute OT.

Standings should not be inflated by loser points akin to participation trophies. That's so lame.

+1

[11WSChamps]

Just have shootouts and be done with it.

[BobbyOrr]

3 on 3 OT is Awful, not because we lost, its just awful with the current rules.

[Cahokanut]

Overtime should be rounds of 5-4s till a goal is scored.

At least the pp/pk is part of the game.

[TheJackBurton]

3v3 and shootouts are dumb and should have no bearing on playoffs since neither is used come that time of year.

Continue giving both teams 1 pt for making it to OT which should encourage both teams to loosen up a bit more in OT.

Go 5v5 for 10 min: win, lose or draw

The only question: what should be ranked lower an OTL or draw (tie)? Maybe they are equal since they are both worth 1pt.

Sorry for going OT on OT. Trade Kyrou!

Yeah, in addition to the points I made, I like your suggestion for OT. 5 on 5 for 10 minutes, Win, lose or draw. And I would prefer the loser get 0 points and each team get 1 point for a tie.

The issue is the whole point of going to the 3v3 OT and the OT loser point was so that teams would actually go for it.

We started seeing way too many teams when it was 5v5 for 5 minutes just basically passing it back and forth in OT neither wanting to take the chance of not getting a point.

So that won't work either.

[smilinjoefission]

Easy solution...play a 5on5 5min overtime, if no one scores, call it a tie. The supposed biggest sport in the world has ties

[netboy65]

He did have a chance to fight for the puck in the corner and he stayed back and let the Kracken guy retrieve the puck easily. They ended up scoring a few secs later.

Riiiight. Ignoring the fact that Schenn and Parayko both went to the same guy leading to the goal.

[clemonsonroots]

at this point I absolutely despise 3 v 3 OT. Seattle had the puck for 2 minutes and went back into their own zone what like 8 times?

Hell there was the one time Bernier took it at almost the Blues goal and was losing control and just shot it back down to the other end because he knew the Blues couldn't get to it.

They have to drastically change OT because it has become an absolute joke.

If they insist on keeping 3 on 3, you should not be able to take the puck back over any line once you pass it like back court in NBA basically

I am fully on board with this idea

[MiamiLaw]

If you want to stop the cycling back to center ice just swap ends and make it the short change. The skating back to center only became an issue when they swapped the goals and made it the long change. Seattle wouldn’t be skating back to their own blue line if the Blues could simply change lines.

That's the way it started out if you remember and then they started doing this, teams played it safe and too many games were going to shootouts, so it was(I believe) Hitch who pushed to do it with the longer change so that teams would be less inclined as they would tire out.

Well that lasted for all of a year or two then it went right back to this.

Simple fact is I'm with Miami once a team crosses the blue line with the puck they can't go back across the red line without a penalty being called. That'll put an end to it.

Id say any line, even the offensive blue line. Once you’re in the zone, you can’t take it out unless the other team knocks it out.

I’m on board with a violation being a faceoff down in the other end where the other team gets a change like an icing.

[hockey jedi]

Kyrou played well tonight. He was not why we lost.

1. Blues had at least 3 chances to clear the zone in the last minute and failed. A clear with about 15 seconds left would have done the trick.

2. Schenn blew coverage on the OT goal.

3. Hofer was of his angle slightly on the OT goal.

4. It was clearly goalie interference. The game never should have gone to OT. The NHL application of goalie interference is a crapshoot and a complete joke. Nobody knows what it is or isn’t.

This is a really good post and spot on. Good analysis Tuba!

[TheJackBurton]

If you want to stop the cycling back to center ice just swap ends and make it the short change. The skating back to center only became an issue when they swapped the goals and made it the long change. Seattle wouldn’t be skating back to their own blue line if the Blues could simply change lines.

That's the way it started out if you remember and then they started doing this, teams played it safe and too many games were going to shootouts, so it was(I believe) Hitch who pushed to do it with the longer change so that teams would be less inclined as they would tire out.

Well that lasted for all of a year or two then it went right back to this.

Simple fact is I'm with Miami once a team crosses the blue line with the puck they can't go back across the red line without a penalty being called. That'll put an end to it.

Id say any line, even the offensive blue line. Once you’re in the zone, you can’t take it out unless the other team knocks it out.

I’m on board with a violation being a faceoff down in the other end where the other team gets a change like an icing.

I'd be on board with any line as well. At least deliberately. Yeah like I said a penalty is too harsh, I can get on board with a faceoff in the other end with no changing of that teams players.

Anything to stop the whole " he enters the zone, puck handles for 5 seconds, passes, passes, passes, holds, holds, heads back out and resets while they change two players, drops the puck so he can change, they enter, hold the puck, pass, pass, pass, skate around the net, skate to the blue line, get cut off, leave the zone, reset, change players, pass, pass, drop pass, enter the zone, skate, skate, skate, leave the zone, reset, skate, skate, maybe take a shot."

Like Kerbs said, the Kraken had the puck for the first 2 minutes of OT simply because they won the faceoff and only took one shot and it was the game winner. They spent more time in their end and the neutral zone just passing and getting players on and off the ice then they did in the offensive zone.

It was just awful hockey to watch.

[TheJackBurton]

Kyrou played well tonight. He was not why we lost.

1. Blues had at least 3 chances to clear the zone in the last minute and failed. A clear with about 15 seconds left would have done the trick.

2. Schenn blew coverage on the OT goal.

3. Hofer was of his angle slightly on the OT goal.

4. It was clearly goalie interference. The game never should have gone to OT. The NHL application of goalie interference is a crapshoot and a complete joke. Nobody knows what it is or isn’t.

The biggest issue with #4 is say it is game 7 of the playoffs, it is clearly goaler interference, the NHL doesn't initiate the review, if you are Monty do you take the chance of calling for the challenge? You know that by the textbook definition that is goaler interference but having no idea how the person in Toronto is going to interpret it?

I don't think you can since if it is ruled a good goal you are putting the opposing team on a power play and that's where the main issue with this ruling comes in. If they aren't going to call it by the basic definition of it where a play checks every single box for it to be interference how can you have any confidence in having it reviewed in a situation like that?