HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Okay, so there are a lot of ties during league play and I am just wondering if anybody believes that there should be a shootout to decide the games after overtime. I, for one, think it would bring more excitement to the game but really I wouldn't push too hard for it. It is just an idea I think a lot of fans would have opinions on.

On the issue of fighting, I don't have too strong of an opinion but I would be open to Minnesota making it legal. It is legal in most other leagues that involve kids the same ages as the boys in Minnesota so I don't see why Minnesota is any different. But, we do produce some of the best prospects into D1 college, so maybe the focus on skills more than fighting helps? I really don't think thats it but who knows. What do you think about fighting? Should the MHSHL consider making it legal?

I think their should be shootouts but I dont know about the fighting. There really is no debate about it anyways because it's a high school sport, no way will the school board and governor or whoever let it happen, not a chance. Maybe a 0.00001% chance, good luck. Shootouts I think are a good idea though, ties are the dumbest thing ever, I think their should always be a winner and a looser. I hate seeing ties. The "shootout" is something that could actually happen in the near future for high school hockey hopefully

No I don't think games should be decided by shootouts.
It's a team game, and shootouts bring it to more of an individual talent thing.

Example..You may have a below average goalie, and OK fwds, but really good D that keeps you in the game.
When you take the pcs that make a team apart, and rest in on one player(Goalie) it doesn't tell the true story. IMO

Because of cost and time restraints you can't play more then a single OT.
I think they have it right, if you can't play until there is a wnner, then it ends in a tie.

Can't Never Tried wrote:No I don't think games should be decided by shootouts.
It's a team game, and shootouts bring it to more of an individual talent thing.

Example..You may have a below average goalie, and OK fwds, but really good D that keeps you in the game.
When you take the pcs that make a team apart, and rest in on one player(Goalie) it doesn't tell the true story. IMO

Because of cost and time restraints you can't play more then a single OT.
I think they have it right, if you can't play until there is a wnner, then it ends in a tie.

I completely agree with you.

Shootouts, and Fights are two of the most exciting actions in hockey. This would bring more fans, and more excitment to hockey rinks around this great state.

Oh yeah I say no fighting either...it takes away from the skill of the game.
It's kind of like the "new standards of play" where they are trying to remove the elements that take away from the playing of the game skillfully.
If you can't clutch and grab you surely shouldn't be able to haul off and punch somebody

This is a joke...

Don't worry young fella, you can watch this soon and hopefully it will pacify you.

Fighting in high school hockey should not be an option. Thinking like that is what brings the sport down. Shootouts is an exciting option. It's made the NHL much more exciting. It could do the same for the high school game. You'd have to clear it with schools like Duluth East though, they seem to think losing in a shootout means they actually tied. Even if it's a holiday tourney, a loss is a loss.

Back to fighting. Making it an option in high school hockey would only open yourself up to liability. It would end up with some hack who's 6'3" going after some skilled player who's 5'5". The hack would say it was justified and within the rules. These kids are just that, and not many would make the responsible choice. Fighting in college and the pros is a different animal. Let's try and keep the game at least a little bit pure at the high school level.

Fighting is not allowed in College hockey. When was the last time you saw the referee and linesmen watch two college players fight until one in down on the ice? NEVER. They jump in and break it up immediately.

Junior and Pro officials let it go until one is either on the ice or obviously losing and or in danger of being injured. Its part of the entertainment value that brings butts to the seats so these teams and leagues can make money.

College hockey is about student athletes and not business. Same goes for HS hockey.

What about letting players go to visors? I know administrators would not really like it, but at other similiar age leagues, it is allowed. The players would like the freedom and it hopefully would keep the "thug" players from taking runs and slashing at the skilled players because they don't have a face mask in front of them to keep them from getting smacked in the face when the retatliation comes. It may be a stupid idea, but the book, The Code makes a convincing argument for how it cleans up the game, however they use pro hockey and visor vs. no-visor.

As for the shootout, yes, but only for regular season games, they only really are for standings in sections and would not effect the rankings too much.

Fighting, no high school players shouldn't have to now go learn to fight to make the team. It takes up a roster spot for a kid who can only fight and would only lead to problems, leave that to juniors and the pros and some mens-leagues.

No shootouts, as an arena employee this would be too time consuming and most rinks schedule groups after high school games. If a game goes to a shoot out and that takes many players to go through then the final groups of the night will get pushed back and the employees would be forced to stay later that they do. Go with the tie and live with it. The game becomes a personal sport than a team sport.....

Zamman, god forbid you would have to stay at your job for a extra 7 min. We all now that you city emplyees are over worked. I agree no shootouts, but not because you will be totally exausted the next day.

I wouldn't mind the sudden death OT being the same length as a regular period something should happen if not then call it a tie it will truly be earned. I guess I come from an area where time constraints aren't a big issue. I agree with CNT why put it on the shoulders on the goalie they are under enough pressure and scrutiny already. The game isn't actually a spectator sport it is still an extra-curricular activity. As for Fighting my comments are...Are you out of your mind? We already struggle getting quality officials and you want add that element with all the liabilities that go with it. That is just a flat out silly question.

Yeah, I really never thought that there should be fighting. But I figured there would be some pretty strong opinions about it and I guess I was right. The overall consenus is no fighting, got it.

tshockey2 wrote:Zamman, god forbid you would have to stay at your job for a extra 7 min. We all now that you city emplyees are over worked. I agree no shootouts, but not because you will be totally exausted the next day.

Not sure if you are aware or not, but most of the part-timers at our rink myself included, have full-time jobs where we need to be at the next day by 0700. If a shootout goes to the tenth or eleventh shooter then we are pushing back the next group half hour or more. I do not know about you but after working from 0700 to midnight then having to wait because a shootout happened then getting up the next day might get old.... Don't you agree?
And you obviously know nothing about city employees.

fiveforfighting wrote:Shootouts, and Fights are two of the most exciting actions in hockey. This would bring more fans, and more excitment to hockey rinks around this great state.

Really! I wasn't aware that this was a problem. Most arenas I've been at for high school games have pretty good sized crowds that generate plenty of excitement.

fiveforfighting wrote:Shootouts, and Fights are two of the most exciting actions in hockey. This would bring more fans, and more excitment to hockey rinks around this great state.

Fights would ruin the game of hockey as we know it. You would have a reason to go find a large 6'4 thug in the school and teach him balance so that he can go beat on a smaller player. This is not Juniors, this is not Pro... NO NEED FOR FIGHTING.

As I would tell my players, if you want to fight do it out back at the school but dont bring it to the rink...

As for shootouts, it is an idea that will be thought about but with how the MSHSL talks about TEAM sports I do not think it will happen. They have it right.

You play 51 min. + what an 8 min. overtime.
Everybody busted their hump and a team loses on one shot?
I just can't see it being decided that way at this level.

scoreboard33 wrote:What about letting players go to visors? I know administrators would not really like it, but at other similiar age leagues, it is allowed. The players would like the freedom and it hopefully would keep the "thug" players from taking runs and slashing at the skilled players because they don't have a face mask in front of them to keep them from getting smacked in the face when the retatliation comes.

Too much liability and injury risk for schools to want to gamble with. They'll never go to visors. I don't blame them. If they can wear a full mask in college, they sure as hell can do it in high school.

Players that are hacks are going to be hacks whether there are visors or not.

Fighting in HS hockey would be idiotic.

Gopher Blog wrote:Players that are hacks are going to be hacks whether there are visors or not.

Just can't argue that point.

Gopher Blog wrote:Too much liability and injury risk for schools to want to gamble with.

Exactly. I read this whole thread about fighting being allowed at a high school function and couldn't believe it was getting serious discussion. You won't see fighting in HS hockey.

My question for those talking fighting is to ask, "at what level is fighting allowed?" Seems to me it is penalized at every level. The big question is how severe are the penalties for participants. You can fight in youth hockey. You can fight in HS hockey. You'll get suspended, but you can do it. It'll be broken up by the officials and you'll be out for longer than an NHL player would be, but I don't see where anyone really allows fighting.

Lots of gray area.

Gopher Blog wrote:

scoreboard33 wrote:What about letting players go to visors? I know administrators would not really like it, but at other similiar age leagues, it is allowed. The players would like the freedom and it hopefully would keep the "thug" players from taking runs and slashing at the skilled players because they don't have a face mask in front of them to keep them from getting smacked in the face when the retatliation comes.

Too much liability and injury risk for schools to want to gamble with. They'll never go to visors. I don't blame them. If they can wear a full mask in college, they sure as hell can do it in high school.

Players that are hacks are going to be hacks whether there are visors or not.

Fighting in HS hockey would be idiotic.

Gopher Blog- I dont know if you know this, but do you know if any of the college players that were just on the U20 team wore the visors?

highschoolhockeyfann wrote:Gopher Blog- I dont know if you know this, but do you know if any of the college players that were just on the U20 team wore the visors?

I believe the only guy who didn't wear a visor on Team USA was Jordan Schroeder and I think that was because he is under 18 years old.

Gopher Blog wrote:

highschoolhockeyfann wrote:Gopher Blog- I dont know if you know this, but do you know if any of the college players that were just on the U20 team wore the visors?

I believe the only guy who didn't wear a visor on Team USA was Jordan Schroeder and I think that was because he is under 18 years old.

He was the only one that didn't wear a visor and you are it was because he was under 18. I know visors will never happen, but I was jsut speculating on another change that people may or may not want to make.

scoreboard33 wrote:

Gopher Blog wrote:

highschoolhockeyfann wrote:Gopher Blog- I dont know if you know this, but do you know if any of the college players that were just on the U20 team wore the visors?

I believe the only guy who didn't wear a visor on Team USA was Jordan Schroeder and I think that was because he is under 18 years old.

He was the only one that didn't wear a visor and you are it was because he was under 18. I know visors will never happen, but I was jsut speculating on another change that people may or may not want to make.

Now wouldn't this make a nice graduation picture