I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of seeing NHL games end in penalty shootouts. And I think there is a simple solution.
Remove lines during overtime. Turn it into pond hockey. No freezing. There are no aliens. Just 3v3 hockey on an open iceberg.
The teams worked out 3v3 overtime. Puck management became key. Players will often cling to the ball and return to the neutral zone if the opportunity to score does not appear.
There is a premium for running faster than hourly in the time zone. And since line rushes often start in a defensive or neutral zone, they take time to develop. Players have developed patience. They are more willing to wait for an opportunity than to force it.
While there are still instances where matches go on and teams trade off scoring opportunities at breakneck speed, that’s becoming less and less the case. And for me, that means overtime has become a bit boring compared to the early 3v3 years.
Five minutes of overtime doesn’t seem to be enough. And I think the majority of players, coaches and fans alike prefer to watch games that end on ice with a hockey game, not a competition of skill like a penalty shootout.
This solution is not revolutionary by any means. I would really be surprised if someone didn’t recommend it to NHL general managers. But it’s worth testing.
There is precedent for introducing this type of rule change. The American Hockey League has long been an incubator for ideas.
Hybrid freezing is a great example. During the 2012-13 NHL lockdown, the AHL implemented the rule as a way to reduce the risk of injury. It proved successful and the NHL followed suit by adopting a mixed freeze approach for the 2013-14 season. The positive feedback from the minors was enough to convince the NHL that it was the right thing to do.
It should be noted that the AHL operates independently. But the NHL gives a huge favor. Basically, whatever the NHL wants, the NHL gets when it comes to AHL’s on-tape product.
But take note of the AHL: the list of rules first implemented by the federation and then adopted by the NHL is a very long one. And only some are tested as required by the NHL. The AHL were the first to introduce 4v4 and 3v3 overtime, penalty kicks and glass rules resulting in a small penalty for delaying the game. It’s also the first time moving face-to-face into the attack zone using power play, performing no-change rows after freezing, requiring face protection, using a scoring trapezoid and more.
So why not spend a year or two seeing what happens if lines are dropped for overtime? I can’t see any downside. Let AHL lead the experiment. The federation is experienced with innovation and has repeatedly shown the ability to adapt quickly.
I know there are purists who would hate this idea. They claimed that removing the lines would detract from the sacred game of hockey. It would be a gimmick.
Also guess what? Received with time. The NHL played 3v3 hockey in extra time, with a penalty shootout to follow. Tradition has long gone out the window.
I argued earlier that most want to see the match end in a live stream. And I think that by removing the blue and red lines and the goal, the teams come up with creative strategies.
Imagine if a team could place a player on the ice far away, waiting to receive a long pass from a teammate in the defensive area. As a former goalkeeper, I can’t tell you how worried that would be for me. Players will have plenty of time with the ball hitting the ball directly in front of the net.
Now, the play that I have just described is not without risk. Basically, teams will play speed, 2v-3 gameplay in the defensive area. And that’s a big gamble.
But I think that by removing the lines out, it will help the players stretch across the ice. And in fact, even when 3v3 was in the strike zone, the ice was still in front of the net.
We need to let the NHL players show their skills. And the best way to do that is to create time and space. The ice is 200 m long and 85 m wide. However, it is divided into the inherent areas of the players. Why is the stymie’s attack power purely due to tradition?
There was talk of adding minutes to overtime. I don’t like that from the players’ point of view. Injuries are a real concern as the minutes go up. And I suspect that extra time will become longer as the teams wait for the perfect opportunity to enter the attacking zone with speed.
Take the referee off the field in the 60th minute but the referee ignores. Penalties will still occur and they need to be called. But I really believe that an overtime approach would be extremely interesting.
Hockey in the pond is the answer. Remove the puck and let them play.
