On the table now, and subject to approval, is a plan for three-on-three overtime, be it for the entirety of the five-minute period or perhaps for an additional two minuted at the end of the normal five of four-on-four. There’s more hesitance amongst team owners to tack on an extra two minutes, and I agree. That’s a hell of a lot of work for the guys out there, after playing giant regulation minutes beforehand. Five minutes is perfect. Five minutes of three skaters on three, well, that’s better than perfect.
Show me twenty hockey fans and, generally, more than three quarters of that number will curse the idea of the shootout. The shootout concept was debuted after the 2004-05 lockout and has been a polarising one ever since. From my point of view, it’s a glorified skills contest that, whilst providing us with some ridiculous highlight reel moves every now and again, is more of a one-on-one competition to end what is a team game. It doesn’t make any sense.
Three-on-three for five minutes of overtime frees up a heck of a lot of ice space, even on NHL rinks that are smaller than those outside of North America, and more space to make offensive moves on the ice is never a bad thing. Some of the best offensive talent in the league – think Crosby, Kane, Datsyuk, Stamkos and Nash – are going to thrive with more space and we’re more likely to see games ending with a goal, and, probably, some awesome moves like we see in shootout, although the crazy spin-a-rama will likely be retired, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing; it always seemed to gimmicky for me. This is great for the fans. I mean, there are few things that can get a hockey fan’s blood pumping than an overtime winner.
Let’s be honest, with the increased ability of goalies in the last decade or so, we’re seeing less goals scored than ever. Look at the save percentages or goals allowed averages from a decade and two decades ago, and compare them with today, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The cream of the NHL crop – think Lundqvist, Rinne, Crawford and Price – are committing grand larceny on a regular basis.
Obviously, fans want to see goals. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind a 1-0 goalie duel every now and again, but I like seeing the puck in the back of the net, too, and we’re seeing less high-scoring, free-flowing games than ever before. Changing the overtime laws won’t help general play, but less shootouts and more goals in the extra frame is at least a start.
There’ll be some great strategy to consider in three-on-three overtime. Generally now we see two forwards and two defenders on ice during overtime, but what will coaches do when they can only send out three skaters? Do you send out two forwards and one guy on the blue line in an attempt to win the game quickly? That will be fun to see.
General Managers are pushing this idea, too, but for a different reason. The less pucks their goalie faces the happier they are going to be. The other goalie-related issue put on the table is a coaches’ challenge – like what is seen in college and pro football – that can be used when the bench boss believes that his net minder has been interfered with thus allowing a goal to be scored.
There seems to be good momentum for this change, which will be deliberated on at the competition committee’s meeting in Las Vegas this June, but with GM’s making moves to increase offensive output on the ice, hopefully we will see these new overtime rules come into effect for the 2015-16 season. The on-ice product will be the beneficiary.
No comments:
Post a Comment