Here's a brainbuster for you

[esls79]

When can an overtime game only have two points awarded (both points to the winner, none to the loser)? Or in other words, when is an overtime not officially a three point game in the standings?

If you need help, consult the official NHL rule book.

I'm just curious how many of you out there were aware of this rule...

 

[mattola]

When can an overtime game only have two points awarded (both points to the winner, none to the loser)? Or in other words, when is an overtime not officially a three point game in the standings?

If you need help, consult the official NHL rule book.

I'm just curious how many of you out there were aware of this rule...

when the losing team pulls the goalie in OT and is scored on I believe.

 

[puckhead]

is this another trivia question that you don't know the damned answer?


I think it's if a team pulls its goaltender, and gets scored on.
(ie. the team that gets the e.n. goal scored on them loses the single point)



edit: I see a fellow Canuck fan beat me to the same answer
a) it must be right
b) we probably both remember the same game.... It was against LA, I think the 2nd last game of the season, we were in OT, and we needed 2 points to get into a playoff spot. Crawford did not pull the goalie, because the loss of that single point would eliminate us. We ended up missing anyways, I think

 

[IPostedWhat]

84.2 Overtime – Regular-season – Extra Attacker - A team shall be allowed to pull its goalkeeper in favor of an additional skater in the overtime period. However, should that team lose the game during the time in which the goalkeeper has been removed, it would forfeit the automatic point gained in the tie at the end of regulation play, except if the goalkeeper has been removed at the call of a delayed penalty against the other team. Should the goalkeeper proceed to his bench for an extra attacker due to a delayed penalty call against the opposing team, and should the non-offending team shoot the puck directly into their own goal, the game shall be over and the team that was to be penalized declared the winner.

Like this?

 

[esls79]

Yeah, I know the answer to this one. I just heard it come up with how tight the Western Conference is and how the first tie break is non shoot out wins.

Yes, in certain situations, if you pull your goalie and are scored upon, you loose the loser point. If it's on a delayed penalty and you score on your own net, I believe that doesn't qualify under this rule.

What I'm wondering, why is this rule in place?

 

[puckhead]

What I'm wondering, why is this rule in place?

just extra risk for the situation I described.... if you have no risk, you can just pull a 5 on 4, with nothing to lose.
It would be funny to see both teams go empty net!

 

[Indian Chief]

My guess is because the NHL wants teams to go to a shootout because it is exciting.

Edit: Or they believe it to be the most exciting outcome.

 

[Slimpikins]

I think two teams with no goalies going at it in overtime would be more entertaining than a shootout.

 

[SLY]

I think two teams with no goalies going at it in overtime would be more entertaining than a shootout.

Lol, that would be fucking awesome.

 

[dboy97]

Why would the second team ever pull their goaltender? He is not going to skate off while the other team posseses the puck for sure. If your team has possesion goin to the other end why skate off why not just take your chances on someone putting it in the empty cage on that rush.

 

[Automattic]

They were talking about this last night in Detroit. I think it was intended for games at the end of the season in which teams are tied for a playoff spot?

 

[puckhead]

Why would the second team ever pull their goaltender? He is not going to skate off while the other team posseses the puck for sure. If your team has possesion goin to the other end why skate off why not just take your chances on someone putting it in the empty cage on that rush.

theoretical of course, but how's this....

neutral zone face-off, and each team is very confident that they can win the draw.

 

[elocomotive]

just extra risk for the situation I described.... if you have no risk, you can just pull a 5 on 4, with nothing to lose.
It would be funny to see both teams go empty net!

The risk is the other team getting the additional point that is still up for grabs since they are much more likely to score on you with an empty net than you are with an extra attacker.

Seems like a silly rule. If someone wants to take the risk, let them.

 

[mattola]

b) we probably both remember the same game.... It was against LA, I think the 2nd last game of the season, we were in OT, and we needed 2 points to get into a playoff spot. Crawford did not pull the goalie, because the loss of that single point would eliminate us. We ended up missing anyways, I think

I think it was against edmonton

 

[puckhead]

I think it was against edmonton

ahhh could be. the last game of the year was against LA then.
the one where we got, like 40 shots on net against their back-up and lost 2-0.

that was a rough week. I am going to go look at the current standings for some mind-bleach. :biggrin1:

 

[mattola]

ahhh could be. the last game of the year was against LA then.
the one where we got, like 40 shots on net against their back-up and lost 2-0.

that was a rough week. I am going to go look at the current standings for some mind-bleach. :biggrin1:

no that was when we blew the Div Lead and the big CHOKE speech. Naslund has never lived that down. I was at that game.

We were one win away from the Div title and taking from Colorado who had it for what almost 10 straight years.

Naslund was 2 goals away from 50 goals and probably the Hart Trophy. I truly believe he lost it that game. He got Lester but not Hart.

the Edmonton Game was 2 years before that.

We clinched the year before this infamous LA game against LA and then had the infamous Lidstrom Goal.........

i know too much about the heartbreaks of the Canucks :sad: