Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Duhatschek: Shootouts to decide NHL overtime games? Don't even think about it

Eric Duhatschek, April 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM EDT

Re, using shootouts to decide overtime games: Good grief Steve are you mad? Or just cranky this morning because you didn’t get enough sleep and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet? I’m sure you were like a lot of hockey fans across the country on the opening night of the NHL playoff season, unable to tear yourself away from the TV screen, until you got a result of the Dallas-Vancouver game, which was actually two, two, two games in one – 60 uncharacteristically high-scoring minutes, followed by the series we all anticipated, a low-scoring, tight-to-the-vest playing style decided suddenly, without warning, by the Sedins, long after most people in the Eastern time zone probably waved the white flag of surrender.

And that, of course, is the absolute best thing about the NHL playoffs – overtime games that go as long as necessary to decide a winner. I can’t imagine under what circumstances either team would have opted to go to a shootout, even the Stars, who have a cumulative 21-5 record in the shootout since it was introduced at the start of the 2005-06 season. That game needed to be decided on the ice – not by a gimmick whose main attraction at this stage of the season would be just to get it over with. There are dozens of examples of overtime games changing the momentum of a playoff series, games that are NHL classics, replayed over and over in the minds of the players that competed in them and the fans that watched them – and you really only need to go back to last year’s second round between the Edmonton Oilers and San Jose Sharks for the best recent example.

The Sharks had a 2-0 lead in the series and frankly, had dominated the play in their own building. They went up to Edmonton and they had the Oilers on the ropes and if they'd put them away in regulation, that would have been the series. But it didn’t happen – and in the third overtime, after Dwayne Roloson had made a game-saving glove save on Jonathan Cheechoo, Shawn Horcoff punched in the winner and the momentum shifted just like that. Next stop for Edmonton: Stanley Cup final.

To lose the drama, the excitement, the thrill associated of playing until the bitter end would be to excise one more bit of NHL history and lore and relegate it to the scrap heap. Eventually, you’d doom the league to a series of hollow, empty wins and losses – with the ’98 Olympic semi-final between Canada and the Czech Republic as your classic exhibit A.

No, what last night’s/this morning’s Dallas-Vancouver game proved was just how important and necessary it is to play until you get a winner. Anything less would be an out-and-out travesty.

 

  1. Northern Focus from Canada writes: As much as I can tolerate change and all in the NHL (and this year was VERY hard)... if shootouts ever replace OT as the "decider" for playoff games there will be one HELL of a protest at the NHL head office.

    It's bad enough Bettman thumbed his nose at Canada barely a month after announcing North Bay as Hockeyville when he gave Saturdays to the undeserving NBC. Something of this magnitude would rightfully form a lynch mob.
  2. Chad Noor from Montreal, Canada writes: But this raises the old deabte : if its good enough for the regular season why isn't it good enough for the playoffs? Why have two sets of rules? Hasn't there been a World Cup (of soccer) or two that has been decided by penalty kicks? Sure, it doesn't seem fair, but at least the rules don't change just because the calendar has flipped over to April or May or June... If you don't want shoot-outs in the Stanley Cup, get rid of them for the regular season too.
  3. Janis Miller from Canada writes: Here, here!!

    COuld you imagine the Stanley Cup decided by a shoot out? A terrible thought, I have seen the World Cup decided in just such a way two too many times in my lifetime.
  4. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Chad Noor, I agree, get rid of shoot-outs completely.
  5. Steve Howe from North of Wawa, writes: Four overtimes in Game 1 of the first round? After 82 games and two months still to go, the safety of the players and the quality of the sport entertainment product (for the paying customer and the TV viewer) need to be considered in making any possible changes. My suggestion:
    Games 1-6
    20 minute overtime 5v5; if still tied then
    20 minute overtime 4v4 if still tied then
    shootout
    Game 7s
    play until a winner, no shootout.

    The fact that Don Cherry and his followers would hate this idea means it might have some merit.
  6. Maximilian Widmaier from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mr. Howe, too many rules, too much fiddling with the structure of the game. There is something beautiful in the traditional way of the playoffs - you play until there is a winner. Simple, elegant, and exciting. I grudgingly accepted shootouts in the regular season (it ends games quick and US fans seem to like it) but the playoff season is where the soul of the game resides and shouldn't be messed with.
  7. Arec Bardwin from Alberta, Canada writes: Get rid of the shootout all together. Regular season 10 minute overtime four on four. If it's tied after that (very unlikely) then it's a tie. You can't have the best team game in the world come down to a skills competition. It will lead to hooliganism.
  8. Mark Gris from Hamilton, Canada writes: I was about to write exactly what Chad Noor did - why two sets of rules? Lose the shootout altogether, and shorten the season to 70 games if you're worried about players being worn out - although it seemed to work well enough the old way for however many decades it was ...
  9. Bobcat Bobby from WINNIPEG, Canada writes: It's hard to see how a goal in the 4th overtime isn't affected by fatigue. Also, adding more than an entire game to the series will take more energy away from the teams in future games and future series. Wonder why both teams in last year's Final didn't make the palyoffs this year? They played much longer than the others and when you add long overtime games to it, it all adds up. We won't see a repeat Cup winner under the present format because of the fatigue.

    I agree that a one-on-one shootout isn't a good idea in the playoffs.

    But why not have such a thing as a powerplay shootout? This would occur after, let's say, the first overtime if no one had won. It would cut down on the long overtimes that drain the teams. It would consist of six skaters against four, or even three, so that it would be real hockey, with passing, skating, shooting, etc., and it would increase the chances of scoring. Each team could take, let's say, 30 seconds to try and score. The defending team wouldn't be able to score (until they had their turn). Teams would alternate as it is now in the shootout.
  10. Globe Insider subscriber content
    James Mills from Calgary, writes: Overtime is one of the great things about playoff hockey and should continue untouched.

    I think if ties need to be decided in the regular season, maybe the NHL should tip a glance to the way they are decided in Calgary minor hockey. Start with 4 skaters aside and reduce the number by 1 every 2 or 3 minutes until you're left with 2 skater aside. Ties don't last long under this format, it's exciting and at least it's hockey.
  11. Alain LeBlanc from Meteghan, Canada writes: I would certainly love to see four on four in overtime. A winner would be decided much more quickly and the sluggishness of five on five sudden death overtime would be eliminated.
  12. M Thibault from Canada writes: Record my vote down for "Get rid of Shoot-outs altogether".

    As was noted, it's silly to change the rules for the playoffs. If, as in this case, the change is for the better, then make that the consistent rule.

    Maybe they can award half a win for an OT loss in the playoffs, too.

    Can you just imagine: It's game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and the Habs lead the series 3.5 - 3 over the Leafs. Letting game two go to overtime is coming back to haunt the Leafs -- they need to win this one in regulation or the Canadiens win it all.

    After all, if the principle is that you get rewarded for not losing too badly, then it should be consistently applied.

    Or, preferably, not at all.

    Cheers
  13. terry stortz from Paris, Canada writes: There is NO WAY shootouts should decide playoff games! The two captains at centre ice -- rock, scissors, paper -- best two out of three. This'll get the game wrapped up and out of the way before the Simpsons come on at 10:00.
  14. R B from Vancouver, Canada writes: No shootouts, ever, for anything (hockey, soccer, tiddlywinks, etc.) What's wrong with people's attention span? Cricket test matches last 5 days.
  15. Joel S. from Toronto, Canada writes: Agreed, no shootouts, EVER. It turns a team game into a individual skills competition, and I'm already bored of it. What's wrong with ties in the regular season?

    I also think going to 4 on 4 OT might be a good idea, maybe after 10 minutes of 5 on 5 OT. 4 on 4 OT is WAY more exciting than a shootout.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Globe on Hockey

Back to top