Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Looks like we will finally get a coaches challenge implented, and 3 on 3 OT added to help reduce shootouts.
"The consensus from all of us is, while we obviously are going to continue the shootout, we are going to see if we can make it a little less frequent," commissioner Gary Bettman said
One idea is to use the American Hockey League’s format: start a seven-minute overtime period with a four-on-four setup and then go to three-on-three at the first whistle after the three-minute mark. The other one is to simply start the five-minute OT at three-on-three, something that has worked in Sweden to reduce shootouts.
I think I'll prefer 3 on 3 to the shootout without question.
Guys with a good transition game, players that score off the rush need to be out there. There will be so much room guys with speed will thrive. The Sedins may get eaten up!
3 on 3 basically will be odd man rush after odd man rush. NHL talent should end games more often than not in this format.
Aaronp18 wrote:I think I'll prefer 3 on 3 to the shootout without question.
Guys with a good transition game, players that score off the rush need to be out there. There will be so much room guys with speed will thrive. The Sedins may get eaten up!
3 on 3 basically will be odd man rush after odd man rush. NHL talent should end games more often than not in this format.
Did you happen to see the highlight package that TSN put together of the 3-on-3 trial that was run in the AHL? Because you pretty much described it there. Some of the saves and goals were just sick.
The Sedins might do better than you think. Generally speaking the only players that can get the puck away from them when they have it are big strong guys who can physically hammer them into the boards while another player comes and takes the puck. If a team runs with those guys then the Sedins will eat them alive with all the extra room. If an opponent runs with the speedy and fast attackers then the Sedins will control the puck and probably get their chances with their give-and-go plays. The downside will be when the other team has the puck.
I played 3 on 3 in a small rink, it's pretty fun actually. Run and gun, lots of chances, tons of goals. Two 20 minute periods and each team would average 10-12 goals. And that's shitty beer league players (of course it means shitty beer league goalies as well).
Give NHL players that space and they will score, a lot. Some pundit made a great point that the PA should really agree to this even if it means playing up to 7 minutes of OT, it's going to mean more goals and more money for the guys scoring.
The Sedins may do well, like you said, if they have the puck. What I see defenders do with the Sedins out there though is collapse into a small triangle by the net and let them have the perimetre. They don't have the shots to beat goalies clean to often and guys aren't afraid to block them, they need to get guys out of position and the goalie moving. With a collapsed triangle the defenders may just have to wait for a weak shot or pick off a pass and then tun it the other way.
It'll be interesting to see none the less. I might even be up for going straight to 3 on 3 for all 5 minutes to see the types of goals these guys will put together!
Zedlee wrote:Right now, a team has to have a minimum of 3 skaters on the ice.
What happens if there is a penalty, 3 on 3? Does that make it 3 on 2?
If so, then what happens if another penalty occurs?
Instead of taking a penalized teams player off the ice making them short handed you add one to the team who is awarded the PP. It become 4 on 3, and then 5 on 3 if another penalty is awarded.
Although in the league I played in every penalty resulted in a penalty shot, but that's because it was a smaller ice surface and adding addition skaters wasn't a viable option.
