3-on-3 Overtime

[420since1974]

LAS VEGAS -- The Board of Governors will vote during their meeting Wednesday on recommendations from the League's general managers to change the overtime format to 3-on-3 for five minutes and to expand video replay to include a coach's challenge on goals scored off of potential offside or goalie-interference plays.

If the recommendations are approved by the Board of Governors, they will go into effect for the start of the 2015-16 regular season.

The concept of 3-on-3 overtime is to create more space on the ice, which will allow for more goals to be scored and hopefully see more games end in overtime rather than the shootout, similar to the success that the American Hockey League experienced this past season.The general managers agreed to send the recommendations to the Board of Governors in their meeting Tuesday at Bellagio Hotel and Casino.

 

By adding a 3-on-3 element to its overtime format, the AHL had 75 percent of its games that went past regulation time decided in overtime this past season. The number was 35.3 percent in 2013-14, when they played under a strict 4-on-4 overtime format.

The AHL's current overtime model extends overtime to seven minutes and starts with 4-on-4 before eventually going down to 3-on-3 if there were no goals scored through the first three minutes.

The NHL had 44.4 percent of those games decided in overtime this season (136 of 306) in a 4-on-4 format.

"I've always said that as exciting that the shootouts can be, I would prefer the games to get decided in the overtime and there's evidence that when you go from 4-on-4 to 3-on-3, it increases the likelihood of a goal in the overtime," Columbus Blue Jackets general manager Jarmo Kekalainensaid. "We've seen that in the American League, we've seen that in the Swedish League. So I think there's a good chance the percentage of overtime goals will go up with this change and I think it's an improvement."

However, the NHL Competition Committee, which met during the Stanley Cup Final, was torn between that format and a strict 3-on-3 format until consensus formed among the players that going directly to 3-on-3 would be preferable.

 

The GMs ultimately decided to go that route because getting to 3-on-3 was a part of any proposal.

"We came out of the Competition Committee meeting with the Players' Association and we talked about both formats, and they went back to their representatives and players, and I think the consensus with them and back to us was 3-on-3 would be the right way to go," Nashville Predatorsgeneral manager David Poile said. "I'm excited about it. We felt almost unanimous that we would like to have more games ended in overtime versus the shootout. We got our wish. We got 3-on-3. I don't know what the statistics are going to prove out, but I know there certainly will be less shootouts. This could be very exciting. It's another tweak to the game that could be very fan-friendly."

The fan-friendly aspect will be a result of the excitement that the 3-on-3 overtime could create, according to Ron Hextall, the Philadelphia Flyers general manager.

"There's obviously a lot of space and I think once there is one scoring chance at one end, typically if you don't score it goes back the other way," Hextall said. "It ends up being exciting, fast-paced and, obviously, the skill level of the players comes out.

"It's just really risky hockey and it makes it very exciting. I saw some of it at the American League level and it's very exciting."

 

The coach's challenge has been a topic discussed for several years. It is being limited to expanding video review to goals scored off plays that may potentially be offsides and plays involving potential goalie interference to ensure that more calls made on the ice are correct.

"There's going to be judgmental decisions and calls made and we're never going to agree 100 percent on those, but it's going to give us a chance to get better calls and use the technology that's out there to help us," Kekalainen said. "So I think it's a big improvement as well."

As part of the proposal, to use a coach's challenge, the challenging team must still have its timeout.

"I think it's probably going to be a trial-and-error basis at the beginning since we've never had this type of rule before," New York Rangers coach Alain Vigneault said. "Probably take a little bit of getting used to for when the right time is, so there will be some strategy involved there for sure."

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=771803&navid=DL|NHL|home

[The_People1]

I don't mind these overtime gimmicks but they must curb the points system to reflect what's fair. 

 

3-points for regulation win

2-points for OT/SO win

1-point for OT/SO loss

0-points for regulation loss

 

Personally, i don't mind tie games.  I don't get why they have to end the game with a winner and loser and then come up with an OT system that we won't see in the playoffs to determine the Cup winner.  Just let games be tied during the regular season.

[travel_dude]

I don't mind these overtime gimmicks but they must curb the points system to reflect what's fair. 

 

3-points for regulation win

2-points for OT/SO win

1-point for OT/SO loss

0-points for regulation loss

 

Personally, i don't mind tie games.  I don't get why they have to end the game with a winner and loser and then come up with an OT system that we won't see in the playoffs to determine the Cup winner.  Just let games be tied during the regular season.

 

I agree about the tie being a better outcome than a SO win, but at least the 3v3 will decide a few more games.  Having 55% decided by SO is just stupid. 

 

Can you see a 3v3 of Gio/Brodie/Johnny?  Talk about loads of space on the ice.

[CheersMan]

I don't mind these overtime gimmicks but they must curb the points system to reflect what's fair. 

 

3-points for regulation win

2-points for OT/SO win

1-point for OT/SO loss

0-points for regulation loss

 

Personally, i don't mind tie games.  I don't get why they have to end the game with a winner and loser and then come up with an OT system that we won't see in the playoffs to determine the Cup winner.  Just let games be tied during the regular season.

 

The 3 pts for a regulation win has been discussed on here recently, not sure what thread.  Someone even showed a site where last year’s results are calculated using the proposed system.  The biggest problem with it is that it creates way too much spread in the standings and eliminates most tight races.  The NHL and fans like the tight races right down to game 82.  I don’t see the three pt system ever being adopted.  The three on three will benefit the teams with elite players.

[The_People1]

I agree about the tie being a better outcome than a SO win, but at least the 3v3 will decide a few more games.  Having 55% decided by SO is just stupid. 

 

Can you see a 3v3 of Gio/Brodie/Johnny?  Talk about loads of space on the ice.

 

The Flames would have an advantage for sure.  I think 3v3 would put even more emphasis for teams to carry skilled puck moving Dmen as opposed to the big and slow stay at home Dman.  It would likely be an advantage to play 1F and 2D as opposed to 2F and 1D. 3v3 would change the game as we know it.

 

 

The 3 pts for a regulation win has been discussed on here recently, not sure what thread.  Someone even showed a site where last year’s results are calculated using the proposed system.  The biggest problem with it is that it creates way too much spread in the standings and eliminates most tight races.  The NHL and fans like the tight races right down to game 82.  I don’t see the three pt system ever being adopted.  The three on three will benefit the teams with elite players.

 

The 3-point system would create numerical separation in the standings but it would not create real separation.  In the current system, 3-wins is required to overcome a 5-point deficit in the standings.  In the 3-point system, only 2-wins would get the job done.  Fans simply have to re-learn standings math.

[Heartbreaker]

The Flames would have an advantage for sure. I think 3v3 would put even more emphasis for teams to carry skilled puck moving Dmen as opposed to the big and slow stay at home Dman. It would likely be an advantage to play 1F and 2D as opposed to 2F and 1D. 3v3 would change the game as we know it.

The 3-point system would create numerical separation in the standings but it would not create real separation. In the current system, 3-wins is required to overcome a 5-point deficit in the standings. In the 3-point system, only 2-wins would get the job done. Fans simply have to re-learn standings math.

I think the old system was fine... Two points for a win, one for a tie, zero for a loss.

I like the three on three, and if they must keep the shoutout, maybe cap it at five shooters. Then just call it a tie. Teams would have a real sense of urgency in overtime if they were at risk of getting no points.

Love.

[LCP_STEVIEG]

So what happens if there's a penalty? Does the team gain a 4th player or do we play 3 on 2? lol

[kehatch]

The GMs like the parity. We clearly aren't looking at 3 point games.

Personally I love 3 on 3. Fewer shootouts, exciting hockey, and boy oh boy will it be fun to watch Gaudreau.

[Flyerfan52]

I think the old system was fine... Two points for a win, one for a tie, zero for a loss.

I like the three on three, and if they must keep the shoutout, maybe cap it at five shooters. Then just call it a tie. Teams would have a real sense of urgency in overtime if they were at risk of getting no points.

Love.

Bolded gets a big YES!

 

I could live with 5 shooters & then a tie as it gets rid of that danged welfare point that makes it look like about 75% of the league have winning records.

*************************************************************************

In hockey as well as life there are winners, losers & inbetweeners but in any set-to you fight to a win or draw. They don't saw off 1 limb from each combatant & have them keep going & if it's a draw call it by who has the best looking girlfriend.

[freakofnature]

I'm another who liked the old W-L-T system.

 

There was a guy who called in on a radio show here.  He didn't like the new 3 on 3 OT thing because they were messing with tradition (4 on 4 and the subsequent shoot out).  I laughed to myself.  That's not tradition.  Tradition was 5 minutes of 5 on 5 OT and no shoot out. 

So what happens if there's a penalty? Does the team gain a 4th player or do we play 3 on 2? lol

Imagine a 3 on 1 two man advantage. 

[The_People1]

I think the old system was fine... Two points for a win, one for a tie, zero for a loss.

I like the three on three, and if they must keep the shoutout, maybe cap it at five shooters. Then just call it a tie. Teams would have a real sense of urgency in overtime if they were at risk of getting no points.

Love.

 

Games used to have no OT which in my opinion is perfectly fine.  If a game is tied after regulation, then it's tied.

 

Things began to change in the 80s when Americans began complaining that they go to NHL games and there's no winner or loser.  They don't like watching tie games because they're not used to tie games in Football, Basketball, and Baseball.  If Hockey wants to join the big boys, then they can't have tie games either. 

 

So they introduced OT in 1983 to try and give teams a final chance to score.  At the same time, due to TV programming lengths and limitations, they can't have playoff OT that goes on forever.  But 5-on-5 didn't decide enough games so they eventually introduced 4-on-4 in the mid-90s.  Then, when that didn't work, they introduced the shootout in 05/06.  And now that the shootout was determining too many games, they want 3-on-3.  Surely, 3-on-3 will create new problems that we don't know yet.

 

This is a classic case of changing something that's not broken and then creating new problems each time a new solution is introduced.  I'm in favour of outright cancelling OT in the regular season.  There's all these gimmicks to end a game in the regular season and then we don't have that in playoffs makes no sense.

 

I'm totally okay with W-L-T and no OT.

[DL44]

Bolded gets a big YES!

 

I could live with 5 shooters & then a tie as it gets rid of that danged welfare point that makes it look like about 75% of the league have winning records.

*************************************************************************

In hockey as well as life there are winners, losers & inbetweeners but in any set-to you fight to a win or draw. They don't saw off 1 limb from each combatant & have them keep going & if it's a draw call it by who has the best looking girlfriend.

 

We've done this before 52..  I guess we'll do it again...

 

In the final yr of ties, FF52... the 1998-99 season.  

Your Flyers in Overtime were:

2-3-19

 

Could you please tell all those here too young to remember watching the product, but are in support of the concept of ties, what the point of Overtime was back in the day and why they decided to change it?

 

I still remember.

ha ha.. just looked up the Canucks record that yr:

0-1-12

Could you imagine!

 

Remind us all... when it was an option for teams to either play all-or-nothing in terms of points (2 for a win, Zero for a loss) or safely split the 2 points and call it a night ... what did teams do?  

Did they "go for it" and play entertainingly... or did they do the exact opposite.

 

Remind us all how you felt in 1999 when your favorite team kissed their sister for 25% of their schedule and why you can't wait for the return of teams on average going 2-2-13..

[Heartbreaker]

We've done this before 52..  I guess we'll do it again...

 

In the final yr of ties, FF52... the 1998-99 season.  

Your Flyers in Overtime were:

2-3-19

 

Could you please tell all those here too young to remember watching the product, but are in support of the concept of ties, what the point of Overtime was back in the day and why they decided to change it?

 

I still remember.

ha ha.. just looked up the Canucks record that yr:

0-1-12

Could you imagine!

 

Remind us all... when it was an option for teams to either play all-or-nothing in terms of points (2 for a win, Zero for a loss) or safely split the 2 points and call it a night ... what did teams do?  

Did they "go for it" and play entertainingly... or did they do the exact opposite.

 

Remind us all how you felt in 1999 when your favorite team kissed their sister for 25% of their schedule and why you can't wait for the return of teams on average going 2-2-13..

 

Yessir, I see what you're saying.

I'm saying I couldn't care less if they never bring back ties. I take issue with the loser point. I find that teams are happy enough with the single point overtime loss, and playoff berths have been awarded on those points. That's bunk. I think it needs to be winner takes all. Furthermore, it's hardly kissing your sister if it's still tied after a 3X3 OT, and a shootout capped at five. I don't think you'll see very many ties - especially given that two points are at stake.

Love.

[Flyerfan52]

We've done this before 52..  I guess we'll do it again...

 

In the final yr of ties, FF52... the 1998-99 season.  

Your Flyers in Overtime were:

2-3-19

 

Could you please tell all those here too young to remember watching the product, but are in support of the concept of ties, what the point of Overtime was back in the day and why they decided to change it?

 

I still remember.

ha ha.. just looked up the Canucks record that yr:

0-1-12

Could you imagine!

 

Remind us all... when it was an option for teams to either play all-or-nothing in terms of points (2 for a win, Zero for a loss) or safely split the 2 points and call it a night ... what did teams do?  

Did they "go for it" and play entertainingly... or did they do the exact opposite.

 

Remind us all how you felt in 1999 when your favorite team kissed their sister for 25% of their schedule and why you can't wait for the return of teams on average going 2-2-13..

Ah yes. The season the Flyers finished 5th in the east & had 1 round of playoffs while the Canucks finished last in the west (tied for 2nd worst in the league).

Would the Flyers have gone deeper into the playoffs if there were welfare points? NO!

With welfare could the Canucks have moved to 5th worst? That would have depended on how the team below them, the 1 that tied them & those 5+ points above them did in pretend hockey.

 

Not a great year to use as an example.

[robrob1974]

So, are they going directly into 3-3 right after regulation? Or are they going from 4-4 to 3-3?

That's going to be all 2-1 and 3-2 hockey. 

[Carty]

Things began to change in the 80s when Americans began complaining that they go to NHL games and there's no winner or loser.  They don't like watching tie games because they're not used to tie games in Football, Basketball, and Baseball.

 

 

[cross16]

personally i hate ties too so i would never want to see the game go back to that. You play to win the game, so the fact that you can leave a game "tied" i think is quite silly to be honest. now having said that, the fact you get the loser point negates the whole idea of getting rid of ties so the NHL hasn't done themselves alot of favors except cater to the fans that want to see a winner which is still a positive. In my mind they should go to the balanced point system so you don't have "aritificial" points but they won't do that anytime soon. As kehatch says the league has made it really clear its not on their radar.

 

I like both the idea of coaches challenges and the 3 on 3 overtime though. I like anything that gives skill players a chance to succeed and anything that lowers the probability of the shootout. Seeing way too many shootouts these days

[conundrumed]

W-L-T gets my vote, as it always was.

20 minute OT where the refs don't "put the whistles away".

Call it like the 1st 3 periods.

The rest is contrived crap.

4-4, 3-3, SO.

It's contrived crap that values drawing viewers to a frigging game show over the actual sport.

Bring back the between period skills tournaments that don't apply to the game if it's so important to viewership.

The continuing alterations to reaching a conclusion between two teams is misguided rubbish.

Bend your sport to appeal to larger masses. It's kind of offensive.

[Heartbreaker]

Bend your sport to appeal to larger masses. It's kind of offensive.

That's how we all felt in '96 when Load came out.

I digress.

Love.

[swtrooper]

I grew up with W-L-T and wouldn't mind it, but when a game ends tied it was just kinda....meh.

 

One thing I HATE more then anything is the loser point. In no way in any other major sports do you see losses rewarded, why the hell did hockey have to be the first?

 

I don't care what scenario hockey goes to and I wouldn't mind going back into time to make it the way it was but cant see the NHL doing that. It just seems like they come up with these new gimmicks to get new viewers and if it doesn't work they try to fix it with another new gimmick. Kinda cheapens the game to me. Seems like the only time real fans had a say and won was that glowing puck mess that fox did during games.

 

Hockey is a team sport to me and should be played beginning to end with the whole team. Call me old fashioned but I liked hockey the way it was back in the day more then what its becoming today with all these changes.

[DirtyDeeds]

i am not fond of loser point either. a point for a tie would do same thing.

 

I believe the purpose of loser point allows teams the ability to stay in playoff race longer. This is designed to bring in more regular season  revenue. I dot see this being changed unless things like a floor cap is removed.