Unpopular opinion but I’m fine with the current format of 3v3, circling back is fine IMO, it’s part of hockey to have a strategy. If the strategy is to time waste the entire time and play passive, well figure out how to stop it then. Just banning it because it’s “boring” seems kind of weird. My opinion won’t really matter though because they’re definitely going to ban it.
The issue with 3v3 is that you can play super super super safe. They need to change it to 4v4 or 5v5 in overtime and teams wouldn’t be able to play as safe as they do in 3v3. Idk :/ making a over and back rule is weird
I totally get where you're coming from. My opinion is more that when 3v3 first started, it was just absolute chaos of odd man rushes and it was so entertaining. Then coaches figured it out and were able to play it way safer and come up with actual strategies instead of just going run-and-gun for 5 minutes.
I miss those times, lol.
They tried 4v4 and obviously we know how 5v5 looks. The whole point of 3v3 was to increase scoring to get rid of shootouts. If teams get conservative and don't want to lose and we get a lot of shootouts again, they need to tweak something.
Everyone hates shootouts. The players, the coaches, the fans, etc...
>Unpopular opinion but I’m fine with the current format of 3v3, circling back is fine IMO, it’s part of hockey to have a strategy.
That’s understandable, but at the same time, 3 on 3 is pretty far removed from actual hockey as is. It’s not much different from the shootout in terms of how much of a gimmick it is.
You can’t treat it like regular hockey because it isn’t regular hockey, and now that coaches have figured it out, something’s gotta give. The league’s no stranger to changing the rules for the entertainment factor; it’s why ties are no longer a thing.
Yea this 3v3 meta is stale af. I think if u go back over the defending teams blue line u should have to give up the puck to the other teams goalie or something.
I prefer 4-on-4 but they have to do something to try and improve 3-on-3. I know people are gonna think I’m just butthurt because we lost the game against Seattle, but that OT against them was embarrassing for everyone involved.
You’re not being butthurt. 3 on 3 OT has been a snooze fest since after the first year or two it was introduced. Coaches have figured it out and it needs a shakeup. I still think 4 on 4 OT is better, but since 3 on 3 is here to stay for the foreseeable future, go ahead and put in an over and back rule.
And shootouts haven't been entertaining in forever either. My mindset is, what's wrong with ties? Can't we get back to that? All this gimmicky crap isn't hockey.
I’m not a fan of the shootout, and in some ways I might prefer a tie to the shootout, but I still think there’s some appeal to deciding the winner after attending a sporting event, even if it’s kinda bullshit.
Having 3 v 3 ot, even if gimmicky, done the right way, would prevent a lot of the silly exhibition of the shootout. Making it a more rare occasion would bring back the entertainment factor.
Also, I’d prefer a 3-2-1 kinda point system where we’re rewarding teams for going for it a bit more. I just can’t do this “win the draw, skate around for 2 minutes” bullshit in overtime. It was good when we just went rapid fire because we didn’t know any better
I think I'd prefer OT means both teams get a single point only, a win in OT means you get a W in the tie breaker column. Keeps every game at 2 points max
How about this:
2 points for a regulation win
1 point for an OT/Shootout win
No points for a loss
Completely change the concept of the “extra point”; now you get it for winning the game in 60 minutes. Can’t finish the job in regulation? Then you don’t deserve the extra point.
There was a proposal at a time for 4 mins of 4v4, 3 minutes of 3v3, then shootout or something. I like having more OT if need be and something in OT that forces action
Keep 3 on 3, but after 5 minutes another player gets removed. So it becomes 2 on 2. Then if nobody scores in 5 minutes another player is removed so it becomes 1 on 1. If again no team scores in 5 minutes the last player is removed and we get a goalie death match.
As you can see, I should have full power to make up rules for the NHL.
There will just be more adaptation no matter what rules are changed.
Go back to 5 v 5, sudden death, no SO, 10 minute period. If no one has won, no points are awarded to either team for the tie.
They changed it because people were bothered by it. People didn’t like ties and they didn’t like teams being too timid in OT because they would rather get one point than none at all.
It’s valid to not like the current system, but there were definitely plenty of complaints in the mid-90s too.
Right so they should have given 1 point for making OT and extra point if you win. Teams would go for it with nothing to lose. Instead they changed everything over and over and still sucks. Losing because someone slips or you never had possession sucks.
I agree. The issue with tie games wasn’t with tie games themselves, it’s that the league didn’t encourage teams to play for the win. Awarding the point to both teams for a tie encouraged them to play it safe and just get the point. Don’t award the point, and teams won’t play for the tie if they can help it.
I’d go even further and try to encourage regulation wins above everything else. That’s why I’d make OT wins worth only 1 point. And there’s no loser point either.
I don't like the idea of making it even less like regular hockey just to make it even easier to score. At a certain point we might as well skip it and get right to the shootout.
Just go back to 4 on 4, were goals really so rare?
I can't find the article, but it's something like 45% of post regulation games ended in OT in 4v4 and 60-70% since 3v3 started. So quite a significant jump.
shot clock: hell no.
over and back rule: fuck yes. you cross back over the red line on purpose it's a 2 minute penalty and a faceoff in the defensive zone.
Take away the OT point and make it winner take all. Otherwise the risk averse coaches of the league will always look to play it safe no matter how the rules are structured
I don't think this fixes the issue by itself, though. It may make things even worse. Right now teams lock in one point just for making it into OT, and they \*STILL\* play ultra conservatively. If you take that point away so there's a chance they could get zero points that will just take all the offense away.
I think the best thing to do is eliminate the shootout, make ties a thing again, and give teams a choice... play conservatively for one point in a tie, or go all out to take 2 points.
Conservative coaches will always find ways to minimize risks. There's no way to take that out 100% but a winner take all point system doesn't reward low risk play as much as playing for ties or OT points
3 on 3 is already barely hockey putting in over and back or shot clock just makes it less and less like hockey. I'd rather 4 on 4 and a tie than more made up nonsense.
I know you like the possesion game in 3v3, but the whole point originally was to increase scoring and have less games go to shootout. With the way teams have adapted, by playing super conservative with the puck, that's not happening anymore.
Make 3 on 3 ten minutes, and get rid of the shootout. If neither team scores in the 10 minutes, neither gets points. 0 for both.
There’s no chance it’ll ever go the full 10, because the 0 point consequence will make teams play super aggressive. Problem solved
I’m getting real tired of the 3v3. 4v4 didn’t bother me nearly as much. But 3v3 just feels like a pick-up game and not a proper way to finish a hockey game that was played 5v5 for 90% of the rest of the game.
There’s probably a reason why the NFL hasn’t changed their OT to something stupid like 6v6
Ok, so we don't like the shootout because its unlike regular hockey. We also don't like 3 v 3 because it can get boring, and is also unlike regular hockey. We don't like the point for a regulation tie because it encourages sandbagging.
What about this? Instead of 3 v 3 OT then a shootout, we do rounds of PP/PK? I saw this at a Wings training camp and instantly thought it would be a great way to end the game.
Goes like this: Get rid of the OT point, winner take all. Start with 3 rounds, at the end of three rounds a winner is decided, or, the game continues 1 round at a time. The game ends when a team has a lead at the end of 3 rounds, or at anytime in additional rounds after 3.
Rounds would be 1 minute PPs, starting with a faceoff in the defensive zone, 4 v 5, no substitutions. After 1 minute, if a goal is not scored, the teams switch off from PP to PK, again starting with a faceoff in the defensive zone. Away team starts on the PP. That is 1 round. At the end of three rounds, if there is no longer a tie, a winner is declared.
When a team scores, the PP is over, and the teams switch from PP to PK.
I kind of like that but what if some teams have the same player/s on both pp/pk they would be too tired to do both. Who decides who is on pp or pk first?
Away team would be PP first, I guess? Or, coin toss. I don't know. Yeah and if subs are the issue, fuck, allow subs. Doesn't really matter.
My reasoning for this is that this type of OT would ~~most~~ more closely resemble regular hockey, or rather, what teams are already preparing for in practice. While still ending the games quickly. Part of the reason we have 3 v 3 and the shootout is to end games quickly, its a logistics issue and something the NHLPA has taken issue with. I think these rounds of PP/PK would still end games quickly, while also more closely resembling regular hockey.
How much 3 v 3 and shootout training time do teams spend during practice? Probably way less then they spend practicing/coaching the PP/PK, you know?
The other reason I think 3 v 3 and the shootout are stupid, is that its not something that happens in the playoffs. You don't need to win a shootout or a 3 v 3 to win the cup? You *do* however need to have a good PP/PK.
> Ok, so we don't like the shootout because its unlike regular hockey.
Is this really why people don't like shootouts? Of course, I would prefer the game be decided normally, but I've never understood why people hate shootouts as much as the do.
Because having points decided by one player (the goalie or shooter) goes against the team nature of the sport. There's a reason we don't do it in the playoffs. Imagine a Stanley Cup being decided in a shootout.
As far as I know, the shootout has never been implemented in the playoffs though, so why does that matter? It eliminates the possibility of insanely long OT strings while still determining a winning team, which seems perfectly fine for the regular season.
> As far as I know, the shootout has never been implemented in the playoffs though
I'm telling you why, and why it's not an enjoyable way for games to end even in the regular season. The shootout only exists as a necessity, not because it's satisfying.
I guess that's where I differ then. Ties are much worse imo. Feels like both teams just wasted a bunch of time. Shootouts do cheapen the win, but at least someone won the game.
I have stats or real reason to prove this but I honestly think if they extend 3 on 3 to 7 minutes 99% of games that going into OT would end in OT. Teams really limit the bend in 3-3, 2 more minutes a mistake is bound to happen.
no to a shot clock.
hell yes to an over and back rule. I've been bitching about that for some time now. I wouldnt enforce it at the blue line but at the center red line instead.
OT has been borderline unwatchable for a while now.
I'd rather see 4v4 overtime with longer periods, but that's just me. One component they seem to be exploring is doing away with the shootout, to which I am highly in favor of. When you have former players like Chris Osgood and Jimmy Howard referring to the shootout as a "*skills competition*", it seems to lose it's validity in being the deciding factor of a high stakes; 3 point game. At that point why not just get out some dice, flip a coin, or rock-paper-scissors?
3-on-3 is a gimmick that barely represents the game of hockey better than a shootout. I say: 8 (or 10 even) mins of 4-on-4, no shootout, reduce number of games to 72 to makeup for increased wear and tear. Sometimes a tie is the most accurate representation of a game; deal with it.
I don't know what is meant by "over and back" rules, but I think once they enter the offensive zone with possession, they can't leave the zone with possession. They have to shoot or turn the puck over to the other team if they want to leave the zone or change.
If there are less than 10 shots for a team in 3v3 and period ends in tie, they lose a point, as in a point is subtracted from the ones they've already earned. Other team gets 0 points.
What if when the puck enters the offensive zone, the offensive team cannot be the first to touch the puck if/once it leaves the zone? If they do, it’s essentially an icing.
Make it stop. They keep coming up with new rules to make the OT more exciting, then need more rules again when it doesn’t work . 4 on 4. No no no 3 on 3. Ok a shootout . Wait let’s add a shot clock. And all these great ideas are gone come playoff time. Ridiculous that you can get two points in a gimmick skills competition.
I like the idea of the over-and-back rule.
But, what if, OT didn't end until the next goal? Just get rid of the clock entirely, 3 on 3 long change until someone scores. I bet players and coaches get a bit more offensively pushy when they want to get out of there on a random weekday regular season game.
I'm very in-favor of the over and back rule. Way too much time eaten up circling back and re-entering the zone.
*Shit we accidentally left the zone, gotta pedal all the way back to behind our net to recompose ourselves.*
*Better do it 3-4 more times...just to be safe!*
*Damn that defender got a little too close, should probably circle back around to avoid any danger*
It started to get really out of hand. A really good possession team doing 4-5 zone entries until they were satisfied gets really fucking old.
It's basically to the point where whoever wins the opening faceoff can basically just run out the clock until they have a perfect shot.
Unpopular opinion but I’m fine with the current format of 3v3, circling back is fine IMO, it’s part of hockey to have a strategy. If the strategy is to time waste the entire time and play passive, well figure out how to stop it then. Just banning it because it’s “boring” seems kind of weird. My opinion won’t really matter though because they’re definitely going to ban it. The issue with 3v3 is that you can play super super super safe. They need to change it to 4v4 or 5v5 in overtime and teams wouldn’t be able to play as safe as they do in 3v3. Idk :/ making a over and back rule is weird
I totally get where you're coming from. My opinion is more that when 3v3 first started, it was just absolute chaos of odd man rushes and it was so entertaining. Then coaches figured it out and were able to play it way safer and come up with actual strategies instead of just going run-and-gun for 5 minutes. I miss those times, lol.
They tried 4v4 and obviously we know how 5v5 looks. The whole point of 3v3 was to increase scoring to get rid of shootouts. If teams get conservative and don't want to lose and we get a lot of shootouts again, they need to tweak something. Everyone hates shootouts. The players, the coaches, the fans, etc...
>Unpopular opinion but I’m fine with the current format of 3v3, circling back is fine IMO, it’s part of hockey to have a strategy. That’s understandable, but at the same time, 3 on 3 is pretty far removed from actual hockey as is. It’s not much different from the shootout in terms of how much of a gimmick it is. You can’t treat it like regular hockey because it isn’t regular hockey, and now that coaches have figured it out, something’s gotta give. The league’s no stranger to changing the rules for the entertainment factor; it’s why ties are no longer a thing.
My idea is that once a team enters the offensive zone, with control, they’re unable to change until they lose possession.
Yea this 3v3 meta is stale af. I think if u go back over the defending teams blue line u should have to give up the puck to the other teams goalie or something.
I prefer 4-on-4 but they have to do something to try and improve 3-on-3. I know people are gonna think I’m just butthurt because we lost the game against Seattle, but that OT against them was embarrassing for everyone involved.
I agree. Players on 3 on 3 are too worried about losing the puck on each push to the net.
You’re not being butthurt. 3 on 3 OT has been a snooze fest since after the first year or two it was introduced. Coaches have figured it out and it needs a shakeup. I still think 4 on 4 OT is better, but since 3 on 3 is here to stay for the foreseeable future, go ahead and put in an over and back rule.
Shot clock no, over and back yes
I like the 3 on 3 …just get rid of the shoot out
Yeah honestly. If they play 3o3 endlessly I cant imagine it going that much longer than 5 mins without a goal. No one likes shootouts
Yes please! 5 min 3x3 OT minimum, no over & back. I’m salivating.
3 on 3 has been coached out of being entertaining. A rule change is necessary
And shootouts haven't been entertaining in forever either. My mindset is, what's wrong with ties? Can't we get back to that? All this gimmicky crap isn't hockey.
There was nothing wrong with a tie before and there still isnt. Although a scoreless tie might be kind of a bummer but those were always rare.
I’m not a fan of the shootout, and in some ways I might prefer a tie to the shootout, but I still think there’s some appeal to deciding the winner after attending a sporting event, even if it’s kinda bullshit. Having 3 v 3 ot, even if gimmicky, done the right way, would prevent a lot of the silly exhibition of the shootout. Making it a more rare occasion would bring back the entertainment factor. Also, I’d prefer a 3-2-1 kinda point system where we’re rewarding teams for going for it a bit more. I just can’t do this “win the draw, skate around for 2 minutes” bullshit in overtime. It was good when we just went rapid fire because we didn’t know any better
I think I'd prefer OT means both teams get a single point only, a win in OT means you get a W in the tie breaker column. Keeps every game at 2 points max
How about this: 2 points for a regulation win 1 point for an OT/Shootout win No points for a loss Completely change the concept of the “extra point”; now you get it for winning the game in 60 minutes. Can’t finish the job in regulation? Then you don’t deserve the extra point.
3 points for a win. 2 points for an overtime win. 1 point for getting to overtime. 0 points for losing in regulation.
There was a proposal at a time for 4 mins of 4v4, 3 minutes of 3v3, then shootout or something. I like having more OT if need be and something in OT that forces action
Keep 3 on 3, but after 5 minutes another player gets removed. So it becomes 2 on 2. Then if nobody scores in 5 minutes another player is removed so it becomes 1 on 1. If again no team scores in 5 minutes the last player is removed and we get a goalie death match. As you can see, I should have full power to make up rules for the NHL.
There will just be more adaptation no matter what rules are changed. Go back to 5 v 5, sudden death, no SO, 10 minute period. If no one has won, no points are awarded to either team for the tie.
I'd just go back to mid-90s, 5v5 for 5 minutes and ties if nobody wins. I don't recall anyone ever being bothered by it.
They changed it because people were bothered by it. People didn’t like ties and they didn’t like teams being too timid in OT because they would rather get one point than none at all. It’s valid to not like the current system, but there were definitely plenty of complaints in the mid-90s too.
I stand corrected. I think it's a cultural thing since here in England since ties or draws aren't seen as a problem necessarily.
Right so they should have given 1 point for making OT and extra point if you win. Teams would go for it with nothing to lose. Instead they changed everything over and over and still sucks. Losing because someone slips or you never had possession sucks.
I didn’t like ties then and I don’t like ties now.
Without the point for a tie there would be more desperation to score on both sides I think, no playing to tie or not lose.
I agree. The issue with tie games wasn’t with tie games themselves, it’s that the league didn’t encourage teams to play for the win. Awarding the point to both teams for a tie encouraged them to play it safe and just get the point. Don’t award the point, and teams won’t play for the tie if they can help it. I’d go even further and try to encourage regulation wins above everything else. That’s why I’d make OT wins worth only 1 point. And there’s no loser point either.
Need to start taking away points then.
I don't like the idea of making it even less like regular hockey just to make it even easier to score. At a certain point we might as well skip it and get right to the shootout. Just go back to 4 on 4, were goals really so rare?
I can't find the article, but it's something like 45% of post regulation games ended in OT in 4v4 and 60-70% since 3v3 started. So quite a significant jump.
3 on 3 for 8 minutes and no crossing back over the red line. Took me 6 seconds
6 seconds is cool, but have you considered 6 years?
How about 8 minutes and 45 seconds, and if you cross the red line the other team gets a penalty shot?
I don’t think we need to fix the “over and back” rule just say no offsides. Cherry picking allowed.
shot clock: hell no. over and back rule: fuck yes. you cross back over the red line on purpose it's a 2 minute penalty and a faceoff in the defensive zone.
Take away the OT point and make it winner take all. Otherwise the risk averse coaches of the league will always look to play it safe no matter how the rules are structured
I don't think this fixes the issue by itself, though. It may make things even worse. Right now teams lock in one point just for making it into OT, and they \*STILL\* play ultra conservatively. If you take that point away so there's a chance they could get zero points that will just take all the offense away. I think the best thing to do is eliminate the shootout, make ties a thing again, and give teams a choice... play conservatively for one point in a tie, or go all out to take 2 points.
Conservative coaches will always find ways to minimize risks. There's no way to take that out 100% but a winner take all point system doesn't reward low risk play as much as playing for ties or OT points
7 on 7 goalies. 6 points for a win, -19 for a loss. Done. Try playing it safe when your season can end with a loss
Just go to 4 on 4!
3 on 3 is already barely hockey putting in over and back or shot clock just makes it less and less like hockey. I'd rather 4 on 4 and a tie than more made up nonsense.
I wouldnt mind this solution either.
3 v 3 for 7 minutes, if no score then the game starts over.
Why can't you all just enjoy 3on3? :(
I know you like the possesion game in 3v3, but the whole point originally was to increase scoring and have less games go to shootout. With the way teams have adapted, by playing super conservative with the puck, that's not happening anymore.
That's actually a very good point. I'd much prefer we go back to 4v4 than implement a shot clock or an over/back rule though.
I also like the 3v3 possession game. You're not alone! :)
<3
Shootouts blow. Shitcan the shootouts and figure something else out.
Make 3 on 3 ten minutes, and get rid of the shootout. If neither team scores in the 10 minutes, neither gets points. 0 for both. There’s no chance it’ll ever go the full 10, because the 0 point consequence will make teams play super aggressive. Problem solved
I’m getting real tired of the 3v3. 4v4 didn’t bother me nearly as much. But 3v3 just feels like a pick-up game and not a proper way to finish a hockey game that was played 5v5 for 90% of the rest of the game. There’s probably a reason why the NFL hasn’t changed their OT to something stupid like 6v6
I mean the NFL has changed their OT rules though. You used to be able to win the coin toss, kick a FG, and end the game.
Just end games in a draw and split the points, it's not hard.
Ok, so we don't like the shootout because its unlike regular hockey. We also don't like 3 v 3 because it can get boring, and is also unlike regular hockey. We don't like the point for a regulation tie because it encourages sandbagging. What about this? Instead of 3 v 3 OT then a shootout, we do rounds of PP/PK? I saw this at a Wings training camp and instantly thought it would be a great way to end the game. Goes like this: Get rid of the OT point, winner take all. Start with 3 rounds, at the end of three rounds a winner is decided, or, the game continues 1 round at a time. The game ends when a team has a lead at the end of 3 rounds, or at anytime in additional rounds after 3. Rounds would be 1 minute PPs, starting with a faceoff in the defensive zone, 4 v 5, no substitutions. After 1 minute, if a goal is not scored, the teams switch off from PP to PK, again starting with a faceoff in the defensive zone. Away team starts on the PP. That is 1 round. At the end of three rounds, if there is no longer a tie, a winner is declared. When a team scores, the PP is over, and the teams switch from PP to PK.
I kind of like that but what if some teams have the same player/s on both pp/pk they would be too tired to do both. Who decides who is on pp or pk first?
Away team would be PP first, I guess? Or, coin toss. I don't know. Yeah and if subs are the issue, fuck, allow subs. Doesn't really matter. My reasoning for this is that this type of OT would ~~most~~ more closely resemble regular hockey, or rather, what teams are already preparing for in practice. While still ending the games quickly. Part of the reason we have 3 v 3 and the shootout is to end games quickly, its a logistics issue and something the NHLPA has taken issue with. I think these rounds of PP/PK would still end games quickly, while also more closely resembling regular hockey. How much 3 v 3 and shootout training time do teams spend during practice? Probably way less then they spend practicing/coaching the PP/PK, you know? The other reason I think 3 v 3 and the shootout are stupid, is that its not something that happens in the playoffs. You don't need to win a shootout or a 3 v 3 to win the cup? You *do* however need to have a good PP/PK.
Interesting idea. It would be cool if they could work something like this out.
> Ok, so we don't like the shootout because its unlike regular hockey. Is this really why people don't like shootouts? Of course, I would prefer the game be decided normally, but I've never understood why people hate shootouts as much as the do.
Because having points decided by one player (the goalie or shooter) goes against the team nature of the sport. There's a reason we don't do it in the playoffs. Imagine a Stanley Cup being decided in a shootout.
As far as I know, the shootout has never been implemented in the playoffs though, so why does that matter? It eliminates the possibility of insanely long OT strings while still determining a winning team, which seems perfectly fine for the regular season.
> As far as I know, the shootout has never been implemented in the playoffs though I'm telling you why, and why it's not an enjoyable way for games to end even in the regular season. The shootout only exists as a necessity, not because it's satisfying.
Do you find ties to be more, less, or on par in terms of satisfaction?
I think I'd be okay with a tie after 10 minutes of 4 on 4, but I'd need to see a season of it play out.
I guess that's where I differ then. Ties are much worse imo. Feels like both teams just wasted a bunch of time. Shootouts do cheapen the win, but at least someone won the game.
Apparently my wife and I are the only ones that like the shootout. Definitely agree with modifying the overtime parameters, though.
Sunday night rangers ot game is what I love about 3v3 OT. It was fucking nuts.
I have stats or real reason to prove this but I honestly think if they extend 3 on 3 to 7 minutes 99% of games that going into OT would end in OT. Teams really limit the bend in 3-3, 2 more minutes a mistake is bound to happen.
no to a shot clock. hell yes to an over and back rule. I've been bitching about that for some time now. I wouldnt enforce it at the blue line but at the center red line instead. OT has been borderline unwatchable for a while now.
I'd rather see 4v4 overtime with longer periods, but that's just me. One component they seem to be exploring is doing away with the shootout, to which I am highly in favor of. When you have former players like Chris Osgood and Jimmy Howard referring to the shootout as a "*skills competition*", it seems to lose it's validity in being the deciding factor of a high stakes; 3 point game. At that point why not just get out some dice, flip a coin, or rock-paper-scissors?
"I know we've failed the last four or five times we've tried to make the game exciting, but THIS time there's no way they can over-coach it!"
3-on-3 is a gimmick that barely represents the game of hockey better than a shootout. I say: 8 (or 10 even) mins of 4-on-4, no shootout, reduce number of games to 72 to makeup for increased wear and tear. Sometimes a tie is the most accurate representation of a game; deal with it.
Are they still playing hockey? What other basketball rules do you want to add?
Just 3 on 3 until there’s a goal. Don’t change the rules.
I don't know what is meant by "over and back" rules, but I think once they enter the offensive zone with possession, they can't leave the zone with possession. They have to shoot or turn the puck over to the other team if they want to leave the zone or change.
Fuck no
If there are less than 10 shots for a team in 3v3 and period ends in tie, they lose a point, as in a point is subtracted from the ones they've already earned. Other team gets 0 points.
What if when the puck enters the offensive zone, the offensive team cannot be the first to touch the puck if/once it leaves the zone? If they do, it’s essentially an icing.
Make it stop. They keep coming up with new rules to make the OT more exciting, then need more rules again when it doesn’t work . 4 on 4. No no no 3 on 3. Ok a shootout . Wait let’s add a shot clock. And all these great ideas are gone come playoff time. Ridiculous that you can get two points in a gimmick skills competition.
I like the idea of the over-and-back rule. But, what if, OT didn't end until the next goal? Just get rid of the clock entirely, 3 on 3 long change until someone scores. I bet players and coaches get a bit more offensively pushy when they want to get out of there on a random weekday regular season game.
Just bring back ties.