Points at buzzer count so

[PurpleRush]

So in the NBA a field foal counts as long as the shot is released before the buzzer.

In the NFL, field goals can sail through the posts and TDs can be caught and count if the ball is snapped before the buzzer.

However, in the NHL, the puck has to cross the goal line before time runs out.

So the result of a shot taken with time on the clock, can have it's outcome ignored if the horn sounds while the puck is in flight.

Is it me, or should this be changed?

[NJTank]

Its just the nature of the rules and each sport makes sense for its own sport.

The NFL is controlled possessions and once the ball is snapped a play is active and thus it makes sense that if you snap before 0:00 it should continue.

The NBA is based on shots so if the shot leaves the hand before 0:00.0 its good.

But hockey the puck bounce is random and crazy possession changes at a fast pace and thus the puck is the key and crazy bounce can result in any goal so the key is what the puck is doing.

[OnWis97]

So in the NBA a field foal counts as long as the shot is released before the buzzer.

In the NFL, field goals can sail through the posts and TDs can be caught and count if the ball is snapped before the buzzer.

However, in the NHL, the puck has to cross the goal line before time runs out.

So the result of a shot taken with time on the clock, can have it's outcome ignored if the horn sounds while the puck is in flight.

Is it me, or should this be changed?

I don't really know why, but maybe it is because many goals go in off of the goalie...so it would create some confusion/controversy should a shot be taken before the buzzer, end up in the net, but hit the goalie on the way. Or worse yet, if the officials are unsure whether it hit the goalie.

I've always agreed you you...that a goal should count if it does not hit a player/stick after the whislte, but I think I just talked myself out of it.

In actuality, I am probably just over-thinking it...it's probably, as Tank says "just the nature of the rules and each sport" and not necessarily for any particular reason.

[Breakwood]

Tank said it already. It's hockey that should be the only reason needed. Why does Soccer not stop their clock and let the game go over 90 minutes? It's just the way the game has always been played.

[BBTV]

So in the NBA a field foal counts as long as the shot is released before the buzzer.

In the NFL, field goals can sail through the posts and TDs can be caught and count if the ball is snapped before the buzzer.

However, in the NHL, the puck has to cross the goal line before time runs out.

So the result of a shot taken with time on the clock, can have it's outcome ignored if the horn sounds while the puck is in flight.

Is it me, or should this be changed?

It's you. In basketball, once that last shot is fired, there's nothing that anyone can do except watch. In football, the play lasts until it's over, so that's a natural extension of the game clock. In hockey, once that last shot is fired, you can have deflections, a goalie making a save but then it trickles past, funny bounces, etc. All of which would bring in to question when is the play (and hence the game) over? There would be way too much left up to judgement.

Tank said it already. It's hockey that should be the only reason needed. Why does Soccer not stop their clock and let the game go over 90 minutes? It's just the way the game has always been played.

That really doesn't have to do with anything. That's not really a rule, just a way of method for doing something. And "that's just the way it's always been" is not a good rational for anything in life.

[Saintsfan]

It makes sense in hockey as well because you don't have to worry about tip ins and deflections, and what actually constitutes a shot.

[Gothamite]

So in the NBA a field foal counts as long as the shot is released before the buzzer.

In the NFL, field goals can sail through the posts and TDs can be caught and count if the ball is snapped before the buzzer.

However, in the NHL, the puck has to cross the goal line before time runs out.

So the result of a shot taken with time on the clock, can have it's outcome ignored if the horn sounds while the puck is in flight.

Is it me, or should this be changed?

It's you. In basketball, once that last shot is fired, there's nothing that anyone can do except watch. In football, the play lasts until it's over, so that's a natural extension of the game clock. In hockey, once that last shot is fired, you can have deflections, a goalie making a save but then it trickles past, funny bounces, etc. All of which would bring in to question when is the play (and hence the game) over? There would be way too much left up to judgement.

Tank said it already. It's hockey that should be the only reason needed. Why does Soccer not stop their clock and let the game go over 90 minutes? It's just the way the game has always been played.

That really doesn't have to do with anything. That's not really a rule, just a way of method for doing something. And "that's just the way it's always been" is not a good rational for anything in life.

Completely disagree.

In the absence of a very compelling alternative, "that's the way it's always been done" is an excellent reason for maintaining a tradition in sports, where the stories, and the appeal, are generational.

[Evil Doctor]

Is it me, or should this be changed?

It's you. The concept is ridiculous. Both football and basketball are alternating possession type sports, meaning the teams take turns going on offense, and to ensure fairness, if a play has started as time runs out, the play will be allowed to be completed. Hockey isn't like that, theoretically one team can have possession for the entire game and take as many shots at a goaltender as possible. The only ways to get back on the offense from the opposing team is to force a turnover, or retrieve the puck before the opposition does. Since there is no inbuilt need for equality of offensive opportunities, consequently the game ends when the time runs out.

[Buster]

It makes sense in hockey as well because you don't have to worry about tip ins and deflections, and what actually constitutes a shot.

Good point. A FG in football or basketball is at a height where it won't be, and by rule, can not be interfered with.

A hockey shot can and often is deflected.

[PurpleRush]

Excellent responses. The deflections and trickles make sense.

Obviously I didn't think of that.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

So in the NBA a field foal counts as long as the shot is released before the buzzer.

In the NFL, field goals can sail through the posts and TDs can be caught and count if the ball is snapped before the buzzer.

However, in the NHL, the puck has to cross the goal line before time runs out.

So the result of a shot taken with time on the clock, can have it's outcome ignored if the horn sounds while the puck is in flight.

Is it me, or should this be changed?

It's you. In basketball, once that last shot is fired, there's nothing that anyone can do except watch. In football, the play lasts until it's over, so that's a natural extension of the game clock. In hockey, once that last shot is fired, you can have deflections, a goalie making a save but then it trickles past, funny bounces, etc. All of which would bring in to question when is the play (and hence the game) over? There would be way too much left up to judgement.

Tank said it already. It's hockey that should be the only reason needed. Why does Soccer not stop their clock and let the game go over 90 minutes? It's just the way the game has always been played.

That really doesn't have to do with anything. That's not really a rule, just a way of method for doing something. And "that's just the way it's always been" is not a good rational for anything in life.

Completely disagree.

In the absence of a very compelling alternative, "that's the way it's always been done" is an excellent reason for maintaining a tradition in sports, where the stories, and the appeal, are generational.

But that leaves us with things like the Washington "Redskins," which is basically indefensible on any grounds other than "it's what it is."

[Lights Out]

It also leaves us with absolute stupidity and corruption like the bowl system.

[Gothamite]

That's where "in the absence of a very compelling alternative" comes in. Eliminating the vestiges of outright racism is a very compelling goal.

[Gothamite]

It also leaves us with absolute stupidity and corruption like the bowl system.

No, needless meddling for its own sake gave us the BCS. And there is a compelling case to be made for scrapping it in favor of a playoff.

I'm not arguing for blind adherence to old ways. Only that tradition should be respected unless there is a clearly better way available. You fix what's obviously broken, but you only fix what's obviously broken.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

It also leaves us with absolute stupidity and corruption like the bowl system.

No, needless meddling for its own sake gave us the BCS. And there is a compelling case to be made for scrapping it in favor of a playoff.

I'm not arguing for blind adherence to old ways. Only that tradition should be respected unless there is a clearly better way available. You fix what's obviously broken, but you only fix what's obviously broken.

Good point. I rescind my initial comment.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm with Gothamite here.

It's also why I think shootouts (or PKs) are fantastic ways to finish off a tied soccer game, but an awful, awful way to end a game of hockey.

I can tell you why I don't like them in hockey--it's not playing the game to decide the game, it's playing a different contest to decide it. But when you ask me why it's okay in soccer, all I can say is that's just the way it's always been so it seems like it's still playing the game.

Now, perhaps others would argue that switching to a shootout was a compelling alternative to the NHL's former tied game policies, but to me it wasn't.

[BBTV]

So in the NBA a field foal counts as long as the shot is released before the buzzer.

In the NFL, field goals can sail through the posts and TDs can be caught and count if the ball is snapped before the buzzer.

However, in the NHL, the puck has to cross the goal line before time runs out.

So the result of a shot taken with time on the clock, can have it's outcome ignored if the horn sounds while the puck is in flight.

Is it me, or should this be changed?

It's you. In basketball, once that last shot is fired, there's nothing that anyone can do except watch. In football, the play lasts until it's over, so that's a natural extension of the game clock. In hockey, once that last shot is fired, you can have deflections, a goalie making a save but then it trickles past, funny bounces, etc. All of which would bring in to question when is the play (and hence the game) over? There would be way too much left up to judgement.

Tank said it already. It's hockey that should be the only reason needed. Why does Soccer not stop their clock and let the game go over 90 minutes? It's just the way the game has always been played.

That really doesn't have to do with anything. That's not really a rule, just a way of method for doing something. And "that's just the way it's always been" is not a good rational for anything in life.

Completely disagree.

In the absence of a very compelling alternative, "that's the way it's always been done" is an excellent reason for maintaining a tradition in sports, where the stories, and the appeal, are generational.

But typically that excuse is only given as a response to a compelling argument... otherwise why would it come up? I could offer arguments against soccer's time-keeping system. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them any less legit.

[Lights Out]

Never mind, thought better of it.

[BBTV]

nevermind.

[The_Admiral]

It's also why I think shootouts (or PKs) are fantastic ways to finish off a tied soccer game, but an awful, awful way to end a game of hockey.

I can tell you why I don't like them in hockey--it's not playing the game to decide the game, it's playing a different contest to decide it. But when you ask me why it's okay in soccer, all I can say is that's just the way it's always been so it seems like it's still playing the game.

Now, perhaps others would argue that switching to a shootout was a compelling alternative to the NHL's former tied game policies, but to me it wasn't.

The problem isn't with the shootout itself but rather with the way that games grind to a virtual halt in preparation for a shootout. Nobody wants to do anything stupid in the third period that might jeopardize getting that one point (except this year's Blackhawks, who let oodles of third period ties break), so you get a whole bunch of half-hearted clock-killing until both teams are guaranteed their half-win. While the shootout in and of itself is exciting, the buildup to it is painfully dull, so the intrinsic excitement of a close hockey game is just deferred beyond the game and into what people deride as a skills competition.

Shootouts would be fine if overtime were longer and teams couldn't sit back and roll the dice on getting the second point in the shootout. You'd see fewer of them because teams would be motivated to win, or not to lose.