World Juniors show we need consistent implementation of shootout across leagues

By Emilie Medland-Marchen, January 24 2017 —

There was a lot of grumbling in the Canadian hockey world following the heartbreaking American shootout win over Canada at the 2017 World Junior Championships. But while a lot of discussion is the result of Canadian hockey pride, the shootout in hockey also has a long and controversial history.

In the NHL, the shootout was introduced following the 2004–05 lockout to guarantee a winner by eliminating ties. In the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), referees will resort to a shootout after a full period of five-on-five sudden death overtime if a tie still persists. In men’s Canadian varsity hockey, the shootout is only an option in bronze medal championship games. In other games, overtime play continues at full five-on-five strength until either team scores the winning goal.

Some fans are against the shootout, arguing that it’s a cheap gimmick that places value on an individual player’s skill rather than the team elements that are usually essential to winning a game. Other fans enjoy the pressure that the shootout places on players, the psychological strategy involved in deking out a goalie or the excitement of seeing their favourite team secure a win in a one-on-one duel. But whether you’re a fan or a critic of the shootout, there’s no doubt that its role in the game — and its relatively short history — is marred with controversy.

The shootout exists as a method of solving a tie in a quick and straightforward way. Before this attempt to declare a winner, overtime play was the only way to decide a game following the regulatory three periods. Overtime was eliminated in the NHL in 1942 due to wartime restrictions, a tradition which continued until the 1983-84, season when the NHL introduced a regular season overtime period of five minutes. Prior to this, games would remain tied after just three periods. But the tradition of tying a game seems to have no place in 21st-century hockey.

After the 1983–84 season, if the five-minute period ended with no scoring, the game would be declared a tie. Teams were stacked with five players each and one goalie — although this later changed in 1999 when the NHL adopted a four-on-four overtime period, except in two-man advantage situations. In the Stanley Cup playoffs, teams play at full strength with full 20-minute overtime periods and no shootouts. The 20-minute periods receive full intermissions, which allows athletes to recover. This method of deciding games is popular among hockey fans, some of whom feel it should be extended to regular-season play and that the shootout should be banned altogether.

But international overtime rules are where the World Juniors controversy comes in. In gold medal games in the IIHF, teams will play a maximum of 20 minutes in five-on-five overtime. If no winner is declared at the end of 20 minutes, a five-round shootout will declare the winner. The differences between overtime rules in international hockey games and the NHL makes  games confusing for fans. The variations from game to game makes the overtime rule seem random to those inexperienced with the nuances of the rulebook and the differences between leagues. For many watching the World Juniors, it seemed like the referees were deciding whether overtime play should be extended or if the game should go to shootout. While this is not the case, it can be a frustrating thing to watch when a gold medal is on the line.

The IIHF first adopted the shootout in 1992 when a new Winter Olympic and World Championships playoff procedure required a winner for each game played. Until 2006, the shootout consisted of five rounds and was only used for knock-out games, but was reduced to three rounds and applied to all games to eliminate the possibility of a tie. Following the lead of the East Coast Hockey League (ECHL) and the American Hockey League (AHL) minor leagues, the NHL adopted the three-round shootout for all exhibition and regular-season games in 2005–06.

The shootout is not used for any North American leagues, including men’s and women’s CIS and USports hockey. This has resulted in some extraordinarily long overtime periods — like a game between Queen’s University Golden Gaels and the University of Guelph Gryphons in the OUA hockey final in 2011. The game went an extreme 107:14 of extra time and was the longest game on record in CIS men’s and women’s hockey history. It was also the longest Hockey Canada- sanctioned game ever played.

For fans of the shootout, games like these support the argument against extended overtime. Playing extended periods is physically draining on athletes, coaches and fans. Without shootouts in the regular season, hockey games can extend far beyond the realm of what’s healthy for athletes and result in greater late-season fatigue. The quality of the Stanley Cup playoffs could be jeopardized by extended overtime in the regular season — after months of playing the equivalent of five or six-period games, teams will be overworked and outplayed for the games that really matter.

But there is something to be said for the psychological test that a shootout offers. While giving players a chance to deke out a goalie with elaborate moves, the shootout is also a significant test for players learning how to perform in high-pressure environments. Success in the shootout is a trainable skill — by utilizing mental performance techniques and psychological resiliency, players can train themselves to stay calm playing in high-pressure arenas. The shootout environment is the perfect place to practise and develop this skill — it gives teams the chance to mentally develop before hitting the high-pressure playoff environment. While some fans argue that teams will unfairly make the playoffs in shootout situations, it’s also true that a team’s ability to perform well in a shootout is a test of psychological ability — something that is often underlooked but deserves to be trained as much as physical performance.

But the biggest issue with the shootout is consistency. The shootout’s uneven application to the minor and major leagues leaves fans confused and frustrated when it is applied. It also prevents athletes from consistently developing their skills in a shootout situation. Whether the shootout is an appropriate way to decide the winner of a game or not, it needs to be applied more consistently to the game. If the shootout is kept, it is a skill that needs to be part of an athlete’s repertoire early in their career. By introducing it to the minor leagues in a relatively low-stakes environment, hockey players can improve their psychological performance and ability to produce under big-pressure games.

Whether you’re a supporter of the shootout or not, its current inclusion in the game needs to be better addressed. As it stands now, we can’t have the shootout halfway — either it needs to be embraced as a developable skill, or we need to find a better solution to resolve tied games.