Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been a hockey fan for over 50 years. I remember Gordy Howe and Bobby Orr let alone Wayne Gretzky. From time to time I wonder if the brain trust of hockey (if there is such a thing) has ever considered adopting 4 on 4 as regulation hockey. I say that because I can see where over the years players have gotten bigger and faster to the point where it is difficult to complete passes and to make plays. The talent of the players has become stifled. Many leagues now go to 3 on 3 in overtime and any experienced spectator who would think about going out for popcorn probably knows they'd better keep their seat because 3 on 3 makes for high energy excitement. I think 3 on 3 may change the game too much and may require athletic talents some of the current NHL players simply lack while dismissing more of the sport's gritty talents. But 4 on 4 may do the trick. It would be a big change and likely would never happen but if you want the game to be more open (and not everyone does), that would be the way to do it.
4 on 4 makes for exciting hockey for sure but that would be nearly impossible to keep up all game. I like the larger rink suggestion. It would open up the game some. Conversely it would favor speed teams and not checking-heavy teams and I think the NHL prefers more contact.
I don't understand why the only thing ever considered is offense. Defense and goaltending has gotten so much better. Why is that a bad thing? They should be punished for improving their positions?
I’d go with 10 on 10, I want to see what happens when the game is so ugly and the ice is so clogged with bodies that any shot would have to somehow miss at least 7 players standing somewhere between puck and goal to have any chance of even hitting the goaltender lol.
4 on 4 is exciting for sure but I love hockey just as it is. It’s my favorite sport, and I only got into it two years ago (Golden Knights) seriously. I watched the Stanley Cup playoffs off and on for the last 20 years but I just didn’t have a team, I wasn’t a die hard. Now in, what, 102 plus 89 games for the franchise I haven’t missed one. I have watched 4 or 5 on replay because of things like weddings, important dinners, and travel but in general I schedule my life around the Golden Knights games. Easy to do when you work for yourself
If I could change anything about the current game I'd ditch the shootout. Extend the 3-on-3 OT to 10 minutes and if still tied then so be it. Game is a tie.
If I could change anything about the current game I'd ditch the shootout. Extend the 3-on-3 OT to 10 minutes and if still tied then so be it. Game is a tie.
YES!!!
No game should be decided by shootout. Reminds me of PKs in soccer/football, which is equally bad.
I agree, get RID of the shootout. Why keep it if you're going to penalize teams for winning in it, not counting the win?! What a lame idea.
I also think, go back to the rink dimensions prior to the 2005 lockout. Get rid of the trapezoid. This might open the game up more. Olympic size rink would also be a fine suggestion also, as pointed out above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
