--- Bill Fenwick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm not an NHL devotee, and I don't like the 4-on-4 OT on general
> principles, but here's a question:  I keep hearing about how the 4-on-4
> opens up the game, allows for more creativity, boosts offense, etc. all of
> which seems to cure a lot of hockey's (or at least the NHL's) various ills.
>  If that's the case, and 4-on-4 is so terrific during the extra five
> minutes, then why don't they spread this benefit around and play 4-on-4 for
> the first 60?  Why reserve all the excitement for the OT?

Suggesting that it be used for the first 60 minutes ignores the reasons for having it.  It’s not
believed that it’s “better,” it’s because it’s more likely that a goal is more likely to be scored
in five minutes, or however long the OT is.  During the first 60 minutes you don’t care if a goal
is scored in the next five minutes.

And in the NHL, there's also a practical reason -- it immediately means 20% fewer jobs and the
NHLPA, ineffective as it is, would really fight it.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com