2008 NHL Playoffs: More Arguments Against the Shootout

          Plain and simple, the shoot-out has no place in professional hockey. It should not exist in NHL, because it’s a terrible excuse for excitement. Intensity cannot be fabricated as it is in the current post-overtime game, since the entire process is made up of only two outcomes; goal or no goal. That is not excitement. That is fear.

            As a fan, when the opposing team comes down the ice on a breakaway, many fans are not watching with enthusiasm hoping to see a remarkable save by the goaltender. Instead they are more often hoping for a no-goal situation by way of a mistake by the shooter.

            A hockey game cannot be ended without playing hockey, and the shoot-out is not hockey. There is no defensive part of the game. There is no physical part of the game. And most importantly, there is no teamwork involved. Hockey is a team sport, and that should not be brushed aside.

            As for the argument that teams can't afford to chance missing a post-game flight and that travel is a major issue in this debate, there are always the odd times where a game must be postponed. It might happen five times per year at the most. A week at the end of the season can be reserved for these few games that need to be played.

            This does not need to extend the season either. It is not like the old days, when a player waited until training camp to get ready for the season. The players today train 12 months per year and are ready to go when September rolls around.

            For this reason, seven, eight, nine preseason games are no longer required. Cut the preseason to about four or five games, and it will clear room for any games that need to be postponed by moving the season ahead one week.

            When it comes to the games on TV going to overtime, during double-headers for example, most networks have regional broadcasts allowing viewers to see the game they want anyway, whenever games overlap.

           Bonus coverage during intermissions or using alternate network feeds provide viewers with all they need to avoid missing anything.

            Continuous overtime does not have to be sacrificed because of a few minor issues. The shoot-out must go.

            Of course, ties are no fun either, which is another reason for the continuous play whether it’s the regular season or the playoffs. 

  During the regular season, the NHL should continue using a 4-on-4 structure for overtime but with a minor change. Instead of going to a 4-on-3 situation during penalties, a player would be added to the ice in favour of the team on the power play, creating a 5-on-4 situation, simply because 4-on-3 results in a goal almost half of the time, where a 5-on-4 power play goal ends up in the net only about 20% of the time.

            A penalty in overtime should give a team any more or any less chance of scoring than it does during regulation. That just doesn’t make sense. A slash is a slash. It’s not a regulation slash vs. an overtime slash which is what the current NHL has in fact created. This fixes that problem.

   As for the playoffs, 5-on-5 is the way to go throughout the entire game. Since time and travel is not such a factor as it is during the regular season, it is best to leave the game alone and keep the rules the same until a winner is decided.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?