New OHSAA Overtime Rules for Post-Season Hockey

[Yappi]

The Ohio High School Athletic Association was left with an unenviable decision in the hockey state final last winter.

Cleveland St. Ignatius and Sylvania Northview were tied at 1 after seven overtimes March 8 at Nationwide Arena. With players showing signs of cramping and fatigue, the coaches for both teams agreed to end the game in a tie. It marked the first time in the 37-year history of the state tournament that teams were named co-champions.

To avoid another such situation, the OHSAA adopted overtime guidelines for postseason games during its board of directors meeting June 5.

"The first overtime will be 5-on-5. Then they'll play 4-on-4 for up to four more overtimes," said Tim Stried, OHSAA director of information services. "Then they will go to a three-player shootout. But it's still sudden victory, of course, for the previous five (eight-minute) overtimes. Rarely do games go more than a couple overtimes."

Read more:
http://www.thisweeknews.com/content...layer-safety-at-heart-of-overtime-change.html

 

[tom 48]

Read more:
http://www.thisweeknews.com/content...layer-safety-at-heart-of-overtime-change.html

Perhaps the rules should also stipulate that, after a certain period, all of the team's players should get a chance to play, not just a couple lines who get exhausted and can't continue....it IS about the health of the players.

 

[vamp2syd]

Just play without the goalies after the 5th overtime..............

 

[SirStanley]

What was the rationale for not having a shootout? My understanding is that the national federation (or whatever) made this decision, but I don't know why.

 

[EagleFan]

They do have a shoot out, after 5 OT's

 

[SirStanley]

They do have a shoot out, after 5 OT's

Right. I was talking about last year. I guess the inclusion of a shootout now negates whatever philosophy was guiding them before, but I'm just wondering what they were thinking.

 

[tom_hsfootball_fan]

What was the rationale for not having a shootout? My understanding is that the national federation (or whatever) made this decision, but I don't know why.

It's based on the rule against the outcome of the game being decided by a "skills competition." Unfortunately, it's the best bad idea out there.

I've said that in the second OT each team must maintain one player in the forward half. That creates a possible continuous 5 on 4. In the third OT, they must keep two players forward, creating a possible continuous 5 on 3... and then leave it there until a score. Any team with a man in the penalty box may maintain the same number of defensemen as if they were at "full strength" for that OT.

To me, this is as close as you get to the normal game AND increases the likelihood of scoring.

 

[arizonawildcat]

Play two overtimes at regular strength. If still deadlocked, go 4-on-4. If still deadlocked, 3-on-3.

 

[SirStanley]

It's based on the rule against the outcome of the game being decided by a "skills competition." Unfortunately, it's the best bad idea out there.

I've said that in the second OT each team must maintain one player in the forward half. That creates a possible continuous 5 on 4. In the third OT, they must keep two players forward, creating a possible continuous 5 on 3... and then leave it there until a score. Any team with a man in the penalty box may maintain the same number of defensemen as if they were at "full strength" for that OT.

To me, this is as close as you get to the normal game AND increases the likelihood of scoring.

I like your idea, tom_hs.

 

[Wadz06]

Anyone catch Dr Dan Ross speech after DIII football championship? He congratulated the two teams for playing tough till the end. Kinda ironic IMO he would say that. I lost all respect for that guy last year. Glad there is now a rule for actually completing a hockey game. Even though one already existed.