Article content
The National Hockey League needs to change its overtime rules.
Article content
While some games with 3-on-3 overtime feature bursts of action up and down the ice, there’s way too much passive, regroup hockey as attacking teams wait for the defending team to make a mistake and leave someone open.
It has become too much of a possession game as teams look to develop the perfect play before generating a shot on net in the five-minute extra frame. If a team doesn’t see things set up exactly how they want in the offensive zone, they will loop back out of the zone to regroup and try again.
Article content
How exciting.
When it was brought in nearly 10 years ago, 3-on-3 overtime was exhilarating. And a few simple rule changes could help bring it back to what it was.
First, an overtime shot clock.
Give teams with the puck a maximum of 25 seconds to generate a shot attempt. If they fail to do that, stop play and conduct a faceoff.
While some would say it would lead to more stoppages — which wouldn’t be welcomed — it would instead lead to more shot attempts, goals, saves, turnovers and ultimately more chances.
The NHL could also consider an “over-and-back” rule similar to basketball’s rule which wouldn’t allow teams to regroup on their own side of the ice. If a team commits the infraction — whether that’s crossing the blue line or red line — blow the play and conduct a faceoff. That would equal more offensive chances.
Or how about an increase from five minutes to ten minutes for overtime which would ensure more games don’t end in a shootout?
Regardless of how the rules get tweaked, something needs to change to get 3-on-3 overtime back to where it used to be. And it sounds like they’re at least talking about it.
Article content
In fact — while we want the integrity of the sport to remain in tact — every league should be considering rule changes to increase scoring, excitement and pace of play.
Recently, the MLB introduced the pitch clock and automatic runner rule, where a runner is placed on second base to begin extra innings. Games are no longer dragging on.
In January, the Grand Slam of Curling is testing a rule change which is intended to generate more excitement and fewer lulls in the action.
During the upcoming WFG Masters event in Guelph, Ont., if a team blanks two consecutive ends, they will lose hammer. Good thinking.
While achieving a blank end still requires precise shots, it can be boring and often predetermined if a team wants to carry hammer into a certain end.
The new rule, which could be implemented full time if it works, will require a shift in strategy for teams with and without the hammer. And while it’s intended to increase scoring and excitement, it also could have the opposite effect.
Teams with the hammer will now have to ensure they come away with points instead of deferring to a blank end if the rocks aren’t set up how they want them. Very similar to how NHL teams wait to set up the perfect play in overtime.
On the flip side, teams without the hammer will be hoping to limit the rocks in play, knowing full well they will get the hammer in the next end.
And while the five-rock rule and no-tick rule will help prevent some of that defensive strategy, it’s a rule change that could lead to more takeouts and fewer rocks in play, which is not a good strategy to increase scoring.
But at least they’re trying.
Recommended from Editorial
Share this article in your social network
