Good Aim, Lousy Shot
To be blunt, the shootout is still a horrible idea.
Sure, you can give the NHL credit for having the balls to shake hockey’s foundations a bit. In fact the elimination of the red line is long overdue, as is the seventy eighth crackdown on obstruction. Can’t say I really love limiting the goalie’s ability to play the puck either but, aside from Eddie Belfour and Martin Brodeur, it’ll actually protect more of them then it’ll hurt. Still though, this shootout nonsense wasn’t exactly well thought out.
The first argument in favour is about the “excitement” it provides. Sure, so is a home run hitting contest. But, as that hackneyed example goes, they don’t decide baseball games that way do they? What then, makes it OK for hockey to implement the shootout as a way to determine a winner? Doing so wrecks the very essence
... read more
Good Aim, Lousy Shot
To be blunt, the shootout is still a horrible idea.
Sure, you can give the NHL credit for having the balls to shake hockey’s foundations a bit. In fact the elimination of the red line is long overdue, as is the seventy eighth crackdown on obstruction. Can’t say I really love limiting the goalie’s ability to play the puck either but, aside from Eddie Belfour and Martin Brodeur, it’ll actually protect more of them then it’ll hurt. Still though, this shootout nonsense wasn’t exactly well thought out.
The first argument in favour is about the “excitement” it provides. Sure, so is a home run hitting contest. But, as that hackneyed example goes, they don’t decide baseball games that way do they? What then, makes it OK for hockey to implement the shootout as a way to determine a winner? Doing so wrecks the very essence of it as a team sport. Having one player decide the fate of his team is ludicrous. There is no historical precedent to go by here.
Of course, it’s argued, the shootout is ONLY for regular season games. It will not affect the more meaningful playoff matches. What kind of logic is this? On the one hand they say it’s going to be a vital change in the game but on the other it won’t have much meaning.
To add to that asinine line of thinking how can it not have an impact? Let’s say a team will now have around ten games actually decided in overtime. There are going to be a lot of points up for grabs now that weren’t necessarily awarded under the previous system. That can mean a potential ten point swing in a team’s standings. That’s enough to put some teams into the playoffs and knock others out. So, in essence, it already does affect the playoffs. This regular season experiment will have some yet-unseen damning consequences.
And what’s so wrong with a tie anyway? How has the NHL existed so long carrying this blasphemous cancer? And how, pray tell, does soccer (the niche sport that it is) survive with its own similar, evil burden to bear?
Once again the trail of blood leads to the feet of Mr. Casual Fan, that elusive individual who jumps from linedancing to Britney Spears to the Atkins diet. These substantial changes to hockey are meant to distract Joe Shortattentionspan long enough to nab his wallet. Hockey, it is argued, will not survive without him. Once again the NHL shows its flexibility in being willing to change the very fabric of hockey.
But wouldn’t a better compromise have been to go to three on three in OT? You thought the scoring chances were insane with four on the ice, just imagine three. Doing this would have added to the WOW factor while still staying true to hockey as a team game. And if five minutes of three on three still can’t decide it? Well then, by God, maybe that game wasn’t meant to have a winner. Is it really that awful?
