March 02, 2003
Why NHL Overtime Needs An Overhaul
For 58 minutes and 30 seconds yesterday, the Washington Capitals may have played their best game of the season against one of the league's best teams, the New Jersey Devils. All game long the Capitals dominated the flow of play. They beat the Devils to loose pucks and worked harder in the corners -- something a little out of the ordinary for a Capitals team that's started to rely more on finesse than hustle since the arrival of Jaromir Jagr last season.
With this combination working yesterday, the Capitals couldn't help but produce more quality scoring chances than the Devils. Not that it mattered, as all-world goaltender Martin Brodeur frustrated the Capitals at almost every turn -- only faltering once to let in a goal by Caps center Jeff Halpern.
But in the last minute of regulation, it all fell apart. Here's how the Washington Post's Jason LaCanfora saw it:
[M]ike Grier dropped down to block a shot in the high slot. The puck died there, Steve Konowalchuk retrieved it and carried it inches from the blueline, and from effectively ending the game.
But Konowalchuk muffed it, the Devils kept the puck in the offensive zone and Jamie Langenbrunner rifled a shot through traffic that eluded goalie Olaf Kolzig with 33 seconds remaining in regulation. . .
"I tried to get it out and I mishandled it and they kept it in, it's as simple as that," Konowalchuk said. "That was the difference in the game. If I get that puck out, we win the game."
But it wasn't to be. Minutes later, former Caps defenseman Scott Stevens one-timed the puck past Kolzig to give the Devils the win in overtime.
On the air at Comcast Sports Net, Joe Beninati, play-by-play voice of the Capitals excalimed, "What a horrible loss for Washington!"
And indeed, it was a horrible loss -- but not quite as horrible as it could, or should have been. After all, the Caps still managed to pick up a point on the road for a "regulation tie."
So, instead of a devestating loss that should have sent the team spiralling into oblivion, we have a team earning a vital road point in a "so-what" manner. Not that the Caps haven't gotten used to it, as they clinched their last two playoff appearances off of a regulation tie -- something we used to know by it's proper, pre-Orwell name, the overtime loss.
And that's just not right. The best reward systems are the ones that reward success, punish failure, and treat mediocrity with benign neglect. That a team can pile up points by continually losing games in overtime is a bit of a sham.
Instead, how about this:
If a game ends tied after regulation time has expired, teams will play a five minute overtime period using the current system of four skaters each;
If the game is still tied after the end of overtime, the teams will determine the game's outcome by way of a shootout following international Olympic rules; and
Ties will be eliminated.
That's right, no more ties. And if your team can't salt away a one goal win with only thirty seconds remaining, it doesn't deserve to walk away with a standings point.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1793
I don't like the shootout. It's exciting, sure, but it's frustrating as well. It isn't a natural extension of the game. I don't have a problem with eliminating ties. In fact, it's a great idea. Ties are unAmerican. They're for games like soccer, or curling. Actually, I don't know if you can tie in curling, but neither does anyone else south of the Canadian border.
Instead, they should go to the playoff format, with multiple overtimes AND eliminate the red line. Games would be faster and breakaways would be more common. It'd mean more scoring and still stay within the context of the game.
Posted by:
at March 3, 2003 02:08 AM
I agree with Jason. Let 'em play 'till someone wins! The shootout takes what is a team sport & makes it all about the individual. It's the equivalent of ending a tie baseball game with a homerun contest, or a tie basketball game with a dunking contest. I don't like it.
Instead of eliminating the red line, I'd say go with international-sized ice. Today's players are too big & strong for the smaller rink size. If you give them the room they need, they'll wow you! As an example, the last Olympics was some of the most interesting hockey I'd seen in quite some time. Naturally, int'l ice is totally impractical from a financial standpoint (losing premium seats, costs to infrastructure, etc.), but it's still something to think about.
...oh, and get rid of the instigator penalty!
Posted by:
at March 3, 2003 05:48 PM
Shootouts are too gimicky.
Instead play four-on-four during overtime periods and randomly eliminate one rule for each additional overtime period (could be elbowing, cross-checking, off-sides, whatever). Also, for each additional overtime period the goaltenders must remove one-piece of equipment (stick, gloves, helmet, cup, etc.)
This would end overtimes more quickly, be great for the fans and would still protect the integrity of the game.
Posted by:
at March 3, 2003 08:41 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
11:55 PM