From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Subject: Re: Why tie scores? (was IHL parent clubs)
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.130916.1@woods.ulowell.edu>  
kiszkaw@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> In article <BxKqB1.78J@Novell.COM> dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM
> (Deb Tokarewich) writes:
>
> > Why doesn't the NHL do that--play sudden-death OT and then a shootout 
> > (or 2 or 3 or...) if still tied after OT? Did they ever do something
> > like that (I can't remember)? It makes it *much* more exciting 
> > (especially the shootouts!), and you (not to mention the players!) 
> >  don't feel gipped by a tie score.
> 
> 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?

> 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).

> 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.

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? ;-)





Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey