From: kiszkaw@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Why tie scores? (was IHL parent clubs)
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:25:28 GMT

In article <BxMH5G.4KF@Novell.COM>, dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.130916.1@woods.ulowell.edu>  
> kiszkaw@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>
>> 
>> A while back, I read in the paper that a GM for one of the NHL
>> teams (Sorry, forget who.) suggested that. It was pretty much blasted 
>> by all the other GMs.
> 
> Do you remember the GMs' reasons (or were they the same as what you've  
> expressed)? Has anyone ever asked the players if they'd like it or not?
> 

The reasons they gave were pretty much what I've stated.  Having read about it
in a Boston paper, they talked to Harry Sinden about it.  He said something
to the effect of :  Why not have the shootout before the game, decide the win
based on that, and save everybody 60 minutes of unnecessary hockey.

>> If you think about it, it really isn't a good idea at all. As an 
>> example, take last Saturday's game between Boston and NYR: entire game
>> was hard fought, with no one seeming to get a clear advantage 
>> on the other. Boston rallies toward the end and earns two goals.  The 
>> game the ends in a tie. Why should 60 minutes of hard-played hockey be 
>> decided in ten seconds?
> 
> As another poster earlier today mentioned, it's rare to find a sport/game  
> that can end in a tie. Most competitions are based on deciding a "winner"  
> and seeing who is the best at that particular meeting of the two  
> teams/players--although some might argue that they play merely "for the  
> sport of it" (but how many--players *and* fans--go into a competition  
> hoping to do anything but win?). "Why should 60 minutes of hard-played  
> hockey be decided in ten seconds?"--maybe for the same reason that the  
> same kind of hard-played hockey can be decided when someone scores  
> literally at the last second of regulation (or OT).

But in the case of the regulation or OT goal, it (the goal) would most likely
be an effect of hard TEAM play for the minute before.  Granted, a breakaway is
practically the same as a penalty shot; but if a goal is scored on a breakaway,
it is because the losing team's defence broke down, allowing the breakaway.
(Although, hockey is known for the odd bounces of the puck.  Good defence can
still yield breakaways I know.  But I'm moving off the point... :)
I guess what I'm saying is:  Why allow the game to be decided by the few who
would take the shots, most likely offencive players, when the entire game
before the shots was played by the TEAM.

> 
>> Another example: Suppose (Just suppose! :) that Ottawa manages to
>> hold the Pens to a tie. Who're ya gonna pit against Lemieux?! It just
>> wouldn't be fair. If Ottawa played good enough for a point, they 
>> deserve a point.
> 
> Some might argue that it's an unfair advantage to have Lemieux playing  
> against you *at all* in the game :-) But even if someone like Lemieux took  
> part in a shootout, that's no guarantee that he'd score--or, if he did,  
> that it would win the game. And there's a lot more involved than what a  
> player or team "deserves"--many play "good enough for a point" but don't  
> get it, for any number of reasons.

Sorry.  My fault for not being clear enough.  If Ottawa plays good enough for
a point, and gets results worthy of a point (ie: a tie), they deserve to leave
the building with a point.  

I understand that hockey isn't beyond fluke-goals or unearned rewards, but no
sport is.  If that's what you mean by a team not getting the points they've
played hard enough to earn, I'll grant you that.  Frequently, the game DOES
rest on the shoulders of one player : the goaltender.  If he (or she ;) isn't
playing well, and lets in a few soft goals, that can set the tone for the rest
of the night.  No matter how well the team may play after that, they could
still lose because of... bad vibes I guess.

> 
> I wouldn't think the IHL is the only place where they have some sort of  
> tie-breaking rule and system, is it? If it exists in below-NHL ranks of  
> hockey, why? I'm probably mostly confused that a league immediately below  
> the NHL would have a tie-breaking stipulation when the NHL doesn't. Don't  
> they tend to make the play as much NHL-like for them as possible? (For  
> example, those new NHL rules this year have trickled down to the IHL--and  
> other leagues/levels, I'd suppose.)
> 
> Also, so far no one's mentioned anything about tie-breaking rules in NHL  
> history. Were there ever any? If so, when and why were they eliminated?  
> Anyone? Anyone? ;-)
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Bill Kiszka
	kiszkaw@woods.ulowell.edu
	Go B's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------