HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dave Hendrickson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dave Hendrickson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:22:33 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
Bob Gross writes:
> Following Mike's point and trying to figure out how to break a tie game, why
> not allow play to continue with 3 on 3 (not counting the goalies) after the 5
> minute OT? This would still be "real" hockey and would lead to a greater
> likelihood of a score. Most folks have said that 3 on 3 is exciting to watch
> (and I agree) - this would be 3 on 3 in overtime with the next goal
> determining the winner. The play would involve both offense and defense and
> of course goaltending. Since different "rules" would be used to decide the
> outcome, 2 points for the winner and one for the loser would be appropriate.
 
It's possible to play 3-on-3 for a long time without getting any goals, if
teams are playing cautiously enough.
 
I've seen youth hockey tournaments that do 5 minutes of 5-on-5, 5 minutes of
4-on-4, followed by either an indefinite stretch of 3-on-3 until there's a
winner or 5 or 10 minutes of 3-on-3 followed by a shootout.  A guy I coach
with was in the finals of a 13-year old tournament in Sarnia, Ontario (roughly
in the Detroit area -- a LONG ride from Boston) and with a 1 goal lead and
about 15 seconds to play his son (usually a very good defensemen) pinched
inadvisedly, they scored a breakaway goal, and his team had to play about 35
minutes of overtime, 25 of it 3-on-3 before they won it.  (Would have been
a long trip home for coach & son had they lost.)  In another tournament the
same team won a shootout after the 5-on-5, 4-on-4, 3-on-3 failed to settle it.
The losing team had come to Boston from Central Ontario and their fans felt
very disappointed at coming that far to then finish second in a shootout.
 
BTW, these tournaments were at a very elite (AAA) level.  I'd expect about
half of the US players to go on to Division 1 college, so talent was not a
factor in the 3-on-3's failing to produce a lot of scoring.
 
An interesting idea, in any case.  I DEFINITELY think a lot more of all the
proposed tie-settling schemes that still give a point to the eventual "loser".
 
Happy that my office-mate crashed the loads last night so I can babble away
instead of working...
 
*****************************************************        ,-******-,
* Dave Hendrickson "Robo" [log in to unmask] *     *'     ##     '*
*        A Hockey Polygamist and Get-A-Lifer        *   *##   ___##___   ##*
* GO BROONS!!!      Go Red Wings!!     Go LA Kings! *  *   ##|   ___  \##   *
* GO UMASS-LOWELL!!!    Go Maine!!           Go BU! * *      |  |___)  |     *
* --------------------------------------------------* *######|   ___  <######*
* Although I can't remember ever having an original * *      |  |___)  |     *
* thought, and am certainly parroting someone who   *  *   ##|________/##   *
* actually has a brain, these opinions are mine,    *   *##      ##      ##*
* not Hewlett-Packard's.                            *     *,     ##     ,*
*****************************************************        '-*******-'

ATOM RSS1 RSS2