What is wrong with a tie anyway?
They don't use Field goals in football.
They don't use a home run derby in baseball.
They don't use free throws in basketball.
They use penalty shots in Soccer but they allow many more ties and a 3 point win.
2007-12-28 10:28:53 · 21 answers · asked by tomjc43 7 in Sports ➔ Hockey
-Nothing wrong with ties IMO.
- Football ends in a tie after one quarter of OT
- Baseball doesn't normally last as long and often times they are staying in that city for another game anyway, don't need to get on the road
- Basketball games are high scoring, leading to less liklihood of long games
- Soccer could go on FOREVER without and it sucks a$s anyway, just too slow for me.
2007-12-28 10:36:49 · answer #1 · answered by Bob Loblaw 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The actual answer is that after the lockout the NHL decided they needed to liven up the game to bring the fans back. They felt like the fans were unhappy leaving a game with no winner. The penalty shot is one of the most exciting plays in hockey so they wanted to incorporate it into the game, thus the shootout was born.
I actually like the shootout because it is exciting and a great way to break the ties. But I think some little tweaks need to be made. They need to credit the shootout winning goal scorer with a goal and look at making wins 3 points so if a game goes into a shootout the winning team gets 2 and the lowing team get 1 point. All these extra points given in OT take the emphasis off of winning.
Baseball and basketball do not end in ties. They keep playing until a winner is decided. In football there hasn't been a tie in like 5 years so its not a problem in that sport. Would you rather there be indefinite OT periods in hockey (like how they do it in playoffs) instead?
2007-12-28 14:22:17 · answer #2 · answered by tigervixxxen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They forgot to get my opinion before putting this rule into practice. Shootouts are the only thing I hate more than ties. What's wrong with finishing the game by the same rules from start to finish? Maybe sell a few more hotdogs in the process.
2007-12-28 10:48:50 · answer #3 · answered by cme 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well they do have 5 minute OT first then its goes to the shooutout. I like it, i rather have an end then a tie, its really exciting but it sucks if your a caps fan like me cause they suck at shootouts. In the playoffs its full 20 min OT and no shootout, last year's playoffs the stars and canucks played 2 games in 1 when they went into 4 OT that one reason why there is a shootout, to shorten the time
2007-12-28 10:42:23 · answer #4 · answered by Andrew G 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They use the shoot out after 5 mins of overtime as part of a ploy to hopefully capture more support from fans in the USA. They have added rules in the past two years to help financially support certain teams in the USA that are barely able to put 5000 people in seats. Ultimately the NHL is just trying to make the game more interesting.....
2007-12-28 11:19:55 · answer #5 · answered by shanelytle73 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Honestly, I think OT should be longer. More like 10 minutes or maybe 15, I don't know, that's what I think.
And I actually do like the shootouts...well, sometimes. It just all depends.
2007-12-28 13:57:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, thye have overtime for a short time, then they go to the shootout for the last resort to save time and to make the game more exciting.
2007-12-28 10:59:02 · answer #7 · answered by mark p 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I Think its a very stupid way of ending the game! if they dont want anymore ties, make 2OT and 3OT and so on!
i want the NHL The Way it was in the year 2000, but no crease rule!
2007-12-28 10:50:08 · answer #8 · answered by Devils4History 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are entertaining, but I can't think of a logical answer. It's a team sport and the team should have to earn the win.
2007-12-28 14:01:52 · answer #9 · answered by tboneund 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather have a tie than a shootout.
2007-12-28 10:38:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋