I gotta disagree. If you do 4 on 4 in overtime, why not do it overtime, and I'm not in favour of screwing around with the game like that. It'd be like pulling an outfielder in extra innings or making it 9 v 9 in the OT of a football game. No other sport changes the most basic rule at a certain point in a game, why should we?
Anyway, I must add a correction to my last posting. Seems I was unaware that if you pull the goaler during regular-season OT and allow an empty-netter, you lose your bonus point. So I was wrong, but look at the ethical gymnastics the league has to pull off to keep this rule in place. Bonus point or no, 4 on 4 stinks.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I could handle the 4-on-4 overtime, but only if you do it in the playoffs too, and there's no extra point for a regular time tie.
Make it run-and-gun, but keep the stakes up. I'm half-tempted to check the standings currently, adjusted for OTL points, and see how that affects the current races.
-Alex K
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
One more reason why 4 on 4 is asinine. Here's yet another. I was watching Sabres play somebody recently (Bruins? Devils? Isles?) when Buffalo were still in the playoff hunt. The game went into OT, and with about 90 seconds to go the Sabres' opponents were given a penalty. The color man was going ape, saying the Sabres need another point for their playoff hunt, so they should pull their goalie and make it 5 skaters on 3. To heck with the empty net, he said, to heck with a Sabres loss -- they should go for all the marbles here. Of course Ruff didn't pull his goaler; like me watching on TV, it went against every instinct in his body. Nevertheless, the announcer was right: Buffalo had a point whether they won, lost, or drew in the OT. So the thing to do was to go for a goal and that second point.
That's how badly this overtime farce has perverted the game: in a case like Buffalo's, a situation shared by many teams over the season's final couple of weeks, it simply doesn't matter if you lose.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I saw this game... When Ulanov got the penalty, Leafs got a 5th skater (which is "above" the limit of 4 in overtime) which made a 5 on 3 as per the rules for two men down in overtime.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Here's a little Mensa test for you all in respect to the rules for awarding power play opportunities during regular season overtime 4 on 4 hockey.
No prizes to be awarded, though I do have an extensive beer cap collection from my earlier years that I may be pursuaded to part with. The Molson Golden and Labatts Crystal caps are collectors items in and of themselves.
Anyway, during last Saturday night's Florida at Toronto game Florida was penalized at 0:39 of the OT for a double minor and Toronto was penalized for a single minor on the same play. This put Toronto on a PP with a 4 skater to 3 skater advantage.
I thought that the teams each played one man short on coincidental penalties and the Toronto PP would start after the expiration of the coincidental penalties but this wasn't the case.
To compound matters, Florida (Ulanov) was called for another minor penalty at the 1:57 mark of OT but continued to play with 3 skaters. That much I understand, you cannot play with less than 3 skaters and a goalie at any one time.
Now, when Ulanov's penalty (the 2 min minor taken at 1:57) expired the he came onto the ice and joined the play, creating a 4 on 4 situation. End of Toronto PP, or so it seemed.
The play stopped soon after Ulanov returned to the ice at 3:57 but when the teams lined up for the resulting faceoff, Florida again iced only 3 skaters until the expiration of the double minor at 4:39, then the penalized player came out to make it 4 on 4 hockey again.
I was a bit confused by this - there was no penalty called for too many men on the ice when Ulanov came out of the box and joined the play. I must not understand this ruling because I am sure if something was amiss Quinn would've been hopping around, throwing his gum and shaking his head as he is wont to do.
Does anyone understand the ruling used in this situation?
