Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 8 May 1994 14:22:45 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I agree. I mean, sure, the shootout between Canada and Sweden
was really exciting, but I don't think you can consider that hockey.
It's a team sport, and as such, it should be won or lost by a TEAM, not
by a few players and a goalie. Even the Swedes thought it was a terrible
way to win. As a player myself, I can say that I would personally not
like to end ANY game that way. A well-earned tie is better than winning
or losing by chance.
As a Maine fan, I can see why Walsh would favor the shootout,
with the solid goaltending Maine always has, and with the usually
consistent offensive skills they have. I don't think it's a positive
step for the game, however. You don't see basketball games being decided
on free throws...
-Brian Sprague
On Sun, 8 May 1994 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Somehow the reasoning behind shootouts seems flawed to me. During
> the last 5 minutes of any tie game, every shot is an "oooh and aaah"
> situation with the spectators. Likewise every shot during the 5 minute
> OT period. So, for the last ten minutes of the game, the ENTIRE
> building is riveted to the action. That's not enough excitment???
> The best game I saw all year ended in a tie -- UConn v St. Anselm.
> Hey, make it the last 15 minutes if you want -- by adding another 5 to the
> OT. But **DON'T** send half the building away feeling they got screwed by
> a gimmick at the end.
>
> -- Dick Tuthill
>
|
|
|