4 On 4, Eh? Let's Think About This

Barclay Poole
Sep 27, 2000

As we all know, the past NHL season brought us a new 4 on 4 overtime format, which for the most part received positive reviews for creating a more exciting overall game. Some have been so impressed with the overtime format they have suggested that the 4 on 4 be expanded to cover the entire game. The thinking - take 2 bodies off the ice, create more room and let the Jagrs and Kariyas of the league impress.

My question, is why do hockey writers, critics and even league officials feel it necessary to keep thinking that the world's most exciting game needs any kind of change at all? The game is already more fast-paced, more physical and more action-packed than any other sport. Sure, minor changes such as rules or equipment regulations sometimes need to be redefined or expanded, but in order for something as drastic as removing 2 players (total) off the ice all together, something needs to be seriously wrong with the game. Unfortunately for 4 on 4 proponents, there is not.

Even though the 4 on 4 overtime format has been successful (at least in some supporter's eyes) assuming that success will automatically carry over to regulation play may be a case of aggressive thinking. For one thing, overtime gives teams the safety blanket of knowing they already have one point, producing a "nothing to lose, everything to gain" mentality, especially in non-conference games. 4 on 4 regulation play would not consistently produce this same kind of environment.

It is logical that taking 2 players off the ice will provide superstars with more room to showcase their skills. However, hockey is a game made up of many components, not just scoring and passing. Of course, everyone wants to see the great goals, but several of the "unnoticed" skills and parts of the game would be severely reduced or lost in a 4 on 4 format. Think about all the grinding in the corners that takes place. These battles are ferocious and along with the cycling among the offensive team's three forwards, it is considered an art. Taking away a forward on each team would certainly limit this important part of the game.

Now think about the battles in front of the net. Two forwards working down low and one man planted in front of the net, being abused by the neighboring defenceman. These battles are always fun to watch and a fan certainly comes away with an appreciation for the forward and the abuse he must take. Not that these battles would be eliminated all together with 4 on 4, but they would certainly be reduced.

Probably my biggest concern with going to 4 on 4 is that just by the law of numbers, a certain number of players would have to be dropped from each roster. In a faster paced game that 4 on 4 would produce, it would no doubt be our beloved "tough guys", or fighters if you will, that would be out of jobs. A direct result would obviously be less fighting, which has it's own group of negatives that I won't get into. Let's just say that the personalities, entertainment and bare handed skills that these guys bring to the game do not deserve to be tossed away for the sake of 4 on 4.

In the above reasons for eliminating 4 on 4 talk all together, I have not even touched on history or tradition of the game itself. I have watched hockey games for over 20 years. Suddenly waking up one day and seeing 8 skaters on the ice lined up for a face-off rather than 10 would be a shock to the system. And my 20 years is but a minuscule subset of the game's history. I certainly am not one to resist change or fear new developments and neither should the NHL. But I do resist change when it is unnecessary and when minor tinkerings will work just as well as major overhauls.

The bottom line is that in order for more space on the ice to open up, penalties need to be called and hacking, whacking, hooking and grabbing needs to be severely reduced. And being patient for team talent levels to catch up with the sudden explosion of the number of expansion teams wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Hockey may not be the most popular sport, compared to football or baseball, but it is the most exciting. As long as the NHL trails its fellow major sports in popularity, critics will always be dreaming up novel ideas to attempt to push the NHL over the top. My suggestion to the NHL - try being patient. Let expansion take its toll in new markets. People in the southern and western United States have being playing baseball and football for years, yet many have never even seen a puck. Let them slowly absorb what a great game we truly have. Of course, in my mind at least, the game's popularity and growth is secondary to maintaining the dignity and tradition for generations to come.

Your own opinions can be expressed in the message forums.

Editorials are opinions of the author, not this website, the owner of this website or any of its members.