I don't particularly care for ties and judging from the photos of the players and coach, neither did they. Kudos to those couch potatoes that have contingencies in their daily lives for 8 OTs but as critical as I've been about OHSAA decisions, my criticisms have been about the ones they've had time to think through. OT
IS the contingency. Ridiculous to plan for 8 of them, might as well plan for end of the world scenarios. Perhaps a change in protocol will occur but given the one at hand, having to make a spur of the tension decision, most people are not going to get it "half right" even if lives depended upon it.
I think I have to give the on-site officials a bit of a pass here. Hockey is a dangerous sport as is, played with very sharp edges. After that much play, you might as well have a bunch of drunks on the ice, for how fatigued a player would be after playing that long. Minds, let alone bodies are NOT working across the board.
I seriously laughed at this.
They are kids you can expect them to be able to go hours. You wouldn't expect a 50 year old to. Kids are resilient let em play
especially after another poster had clearly outlined the time and effort on the ice that had just occurred.
I think even in hind-sight, officials probably did the right thing.
It's pretty clear that the OHSAA has little forethought capability and contingency planning for situations like this. This is a circus and should have never happened. Player safety is paramount; they are kids. A few questions still unanswered...
1) - If player safety was the only reason, why not postpone/suspend the game to be completed later?
2) - If there was some other situation, such as a massive electrical power failure in the arena at the end of regulation, would a tie have been declared?
3) - If this is what the OHSAA officials were thinking of doing, why didn't they tell the teams that the 7th overtime would be the last one before that OT period started? That would have significantly affected how that period was played.
4) - What would OSHAA do if this was a semi-final game? Declare a tie and have 3 teams on the ice for the championship game?
1) Expense and travel time? That's what would have occurred to me. Certainly there's nothing here that can't be undone, should the schools decide they want to do it.
3) Didn't occur to them? How do you think they would have "significantly" changed their approaches? I have to imagine by the 7th OT, both teams were being as aggressive as possible on offense.
4) Good question except the sarcasm.
Hockey is one sport where a fatigue mistake can lead to a very dangerous cut. I guess I wouldn't have wanted to be the one that had to make the decision but I agree, there is a weakness in the manner of deciding regular time ties. However, I think they are consistent with other high school associations, correct? So, there's been a filtering. This wasn't a decision on a whim.
I think they should get a bit of a pass on this one.