Saturday, December 02, 2006

Dum-Dee-Dum-Dum ...

It's over. The Sabres-Rangers series, that is. Jessica and I know which team won...ahem...SWEPT the series 4-0.

Upstate NY rules!

PS I must confess, these shoot-out wins are extremely nerve-wracking. Is it just my team or something about the new rules that causes more OTs and shoot-outs?

And, do we like the new rules? I'm all for a faster game (not as many off-sides calls and endless face-offs), but to have two great teams, with great players, really duke it out and give it their all for 60 minutes and have it all be decided by a shoot-out ... well, it seems somehow anti-climatic. And maybe unfair? I mean, hockey is all about skill and speed, passing and team work. Shoot-outs are 1 on 1, all or nothing.

What do the rest of you think?

3 comments:

barbp said...

Congrats on the sweep. We saw the highlights about 1:00am after our Penn State Friday night game over a "late" dinner with many teammates and parents and none of us could believe the shoot out - again. I immediately thought of ya'll.

Toronto JUST lost to the Habs in a shoot out. Good things and bad things about the new rules. You're absolutely right about this being a team sport. It seems like we are seeing an awful lot of "skills contests" to decide the games.

Whoa I just saw the interview of Sheldon Souray of Montreal. Handsome? Uh, yeah.

Anonymous said...

I love the shoot outs. Absolutely love them. It's either that or leave the game as a tie. Having 5 minute OT period over and over again is unrealistic.

Comparing it to the old rules that it's a tie if no winner after OT, then the number of points a team gets if they lose in a shoot out is the same as if the OT period ended with no winner.

As for "skills contests" -- isn't that what a sport is all about? What about penalty shots?

Zarzuela said...

Woo hoo! Sabres RULE! :)

I'm not a fan of the shoot-outs. I think it's anticlimatic myself. I'd much rather let them play until someone wins. I think ties are pointless too in other words.

Jessica