Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • you're upset with shoot outs wouldn't be because the Bruins lost would it?

    All kidding aside I'm assuming that you're talking about the Toronto vs Boston game. It was also my first time seeing a regular season shoot out and I have to say I agree with you. However, if the shoot out causes the teams to work harder in the 5 minute OT period I'm all for it.

    Watching OT in last nights game was very exciting, almost playoff OT exciting. You could tell they players were really trying to finish the game withou

    • you're upset with shoot outs wouldn't be because the Bruins lost would it?

      I know you're kidding, but: correct. I was actually a bit more open-minded to it until right before it began. I thought: I don't care how this ends, it's a dumb way to decide this great game I just saw.

      All kidding aside I'm assuming that you're talking about the Toronto vs Boston game. It was also my first time seeing a regular season shoot out and I have to say I agree with you. However, if the shoot out causes the teams to work ha
      • How about simply taking away the extra point, so if you lose, you LOSE?

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is the way it used to be. At the end of regulation they would play an additional 5 minutes. If someone scored during that time, the winning team would receive 2 points, and the losing team nothing. Teams started playing for the tie rather than the win to at least give them self one point. Rather than watching two teams playing to preserve one point I'd rather see them play for an additio

        • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is the way it used to be. At the end of regulation they would play an additional 5 minutes. If someone scored during that time, the winning team would receive 2 points, and the losing team nothing.

          Right. And it was good.

          Teams started playing for the tie rather than the win to at least give them self one point.

          No. It'd been that way for 100 years, teams didn't "start" doing anything. The problems had more to do with the fact that penalties were not being called, so teams just played trap and clutched and grabbed, so no one scored much in OT.

          I think if they simply made the changes they did -- except for the one with the no-goalie-zone -- and went back to ties, it would solve all the problems they had before. Instead, the keep piling band-aid on top of band-aid.

          Teams play for ties, so instead of fixing the play on the ice that prevents scoring opportunities, we take away the disincentive to losing, which is inherently a lame idea (when you have nothing to lose, it takes away from the excitement).

          But that's not enough, oh no, now we have to also reduce the number of players. And then that's not enough, now we need to add a shootout ... and isn't a shootout incentive enough to play hard? Why do we also need four a side and free points for losing?

          Go back to no shootouts, five a side, and ties.