Lament for the Shootout

It's a little early in these playoffs to get all misty.

But I must confess. I miss the shootout.

Not that the OT games thus far in the post-season - Game 1 of Buffalo-Philly, Game 1 of Anaheim-Calgary, Game 1 of Edmonton-Detroit - haven't been entertaining and fun.

Daniel Briere, Darren McCarty and Kirk Maltby all got to play hero for one night, and the goals by Briere and McCarty were actually nice scores. Maltby's was the kind that too often decides important OT matches, a lucky carom off an unsuspecting opponent's stick.

The fact that the NHL is thus far doing a very, very good job of calling penalties just as they were called during the regular season is producing terrific hockey, and that's certainly the case in OT where in previous years action was reduced to a crawl when referees literally refused to blow the whistle on any type of foul.

Still, I miss the shootout.

It's funny how the debate over this new wrinkle went all but silent over the course of the season as even the loudest opponents had to relent in the face of widespread acceptance. People are still arguing over the rule about players flipping the puck over the glass, the trapezoid behind the nets for goalies and the very dicey goalie-interference calls that are appearing nightly.

But the shootout? Nobody says it's a bad thing anymore, just as you never hear anybody - even Ron MacLean! - argue for the return of the red line for two-line passes.

Remember the great red line debate? How teams would only trap and it would turn the game into ping-pong, a series of unsuccessful long bomb passes?

Funny, you don't hear that anymore.

But back to the shootout. If it was appropriate to play such a significant role in determining regular season standings, it's not clear to me why it would be impossible to use it in the playoffs.

Goodness, it has now become an article of faith among die-hard Leaf supporters that their club would have been in the playoffs if not for the shootout.

Surely a mechanism that causes a team to miss the playoffs altogether isn't too gimmicky for determining the winner of a playoff game.

I'm not saying use the same regular season format for the playoffs, five minutes of four-on-four OT and then a shootout.

How about 20 minutes of regular OT followed by 20 minutes of four-on-four combat, with a shootout then used if the game is still tied.

Five shooters each, not like the regular season.

That would be no more unfair that it was for Edmonton in their opener against Detroit when Maltby's shot deflected off Rem Murray's stick past Dwayne Roloson.

Plus, every once in a while, we'd get to see the shootout in the post-season.

If the atmosphere was electric in NHL rinks all season whenever a shootout was required, imagine what it would be like in the playoffs. Moroever, for TV purposes, you'd have a lot more people sticking around to watch long OT sessions if they knew, for certain, that they would be able to see a winner emerge before they went to bed.

Comments

[bryon]

I don't miss the shoot-out at all. I don't mind it during the regular season, but leave it for what it is -- an entertaining sideshow designed to make sure games (a) end without a tie, and (b) end at a reasonable time.

But to eliminate playoff overtime games would be to get rid of one of the NHL's most best and most dramatic traditions.

[Eugene]

Absolutely not! I hate shootouts, in any format. It should never be used to determine the outcome of a team sport. I don't like it in regular season and I especially don't like it in the playoffs. Maybe I’m jaded, because I’m a Leafs Fan, ad this caused them to miss the playoffs, or maybe it’s because I’m and Italian Soccer fan and had to suffer through Italy losing in Penalty shots in three straight times: 1990 (Argentina), 1994 (Brazil), 1998 (France). That’s three world cups! Here’s hoping it doesn’t happen again in 2006.

Call me bitter if you will, but the teams in actual play should always decide a team sport contest. Not player v.s. goalie in a skills competition.

If you must add excitement to the conclusion (I do not think that any more excitement needs to be added when it’s sudden death) then go to 4 on 4 for the second 20 minutes of OT. I am sure that it wouldn’t be a long overtime when it’s 4 on 4.

Even for the regular season, it’s not necessary. I do not see what’s wrong with a tie. You could accomplish the same thing by making a regulation time win worth 3 points, OT win worth 2 and a tie worth 1 point. If you still don’t want ties then go to three on three.

Anything buy Shootout and Penalty Shots.

Forza Italia and Go Leafs Go…. Go Lighting Go. Seeing as Sens fans love to watch the Leafs lose. Wouldn’t another First round loss for the Sens be Sensational!

[Ryan Stone]

Bad, bad idea. Shootouts are only acceptable in the regular season because there's no other way of settling a game quickly. Playoff games can take all the time they need to finish so that's not a worry. Frankly, playoff games should be decided by the whole team, and not the goalies and the three best players.

[Kent MacDonald]

a lot of people just gave up the arguement. once the media accepted the shootouts, theres nothing you can do. it's just like politics and fashion, once the media's on board, the rest of us dont matter anymore - but mostly because 90% of people just do what they're told to do, and their info comes from the tv.

shootouts do no belong in the league, and if they ever appear in the playoffs it'll be a tragedy. that is when you would find teams playing the trap. they'd get jokinen and a sykora and a couple other shootout specialists on their team, and then just trap and play for the tie. even if that didnt happen, the league would still not be better for having shootouts. there is nothing better than a triple overtime, and there never will be.