Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.
Sport: Hockey
3 team hockey   (+11, -2)  [vote for, against]
3 teams play against each other simultaneously

The teams play on a triangle shaped ice rink with 200 ft long sides and three 60 degree angled corners.

In the center of the triangle is a Y-shaped red line adjoining the center of each side to the middle of the triangle, where appears the main face off circle. Each 'corner' has a blue line, one faceoff circle and a team's net and goaltender.

The teams play at the same time. Each side has a 5 man line-up of goaltender, 2 defencemen, and 2 wingers, either of which can sub as center on the fly.

To prevent two teams from ganging up on one, the game is played as follows: team A can only score on team B's net; team B can only score on team C's net; and team C can only score on team A's net.

Therefore, at any given time, each team is trying to score (and encountering defense) on one team, while resisting the offensive from another. I think this element would be very interesting to watch.

There are lots of problems to be worked out, such as necessary rule changes with a triangle shaped, oddly lined rink to properly accommodate two-line passes, offsides, icing, etc. With a Y shaped red line it's possible to cross the red line twice in the same shot. Should that be an infraction?
-- waugsqueke, Mar 25 2003

Illustration http://www.angelfir...mac/xmad/Rink-3.gif
Overview of the 3-way hockey rink [MaxMad, Oct 04 2004]

3 Player (ahem) Chess http://www.chessvar....dir/3manchess.html
Reminded me of this [Detly, May 25 2005]

Add 3 extra pucks and a llama for some real action.
-- Worldgineer, Mar 25 2003


Last time I checked Llama's ice standing abilities are pretty bad. Try a tiger instead. (+) Best idea I've heard in ages!
-- silverstormer, Apr 01 2003


Very much like Chinese checkers. It could be applied to any game, resulting in a fascinating chaos. Ganging up should not be discouraged though, as this adds a bit of reality to it. I can picture an Olympic event with 50 countries fielding teams in one game. 49 on one side, and Iraq on the other...the fans breathlessly awaiting the outcome.
-- pluterday, Apr 01 2003


No, definitely no ganging up. That was one of the problems I had to solve. You can't have a 5 against 10 game, that's pointless. A vs. B / B vs. C / C vs. A makes it reasonably even-strength, and much more interesting to watch. It certainly adds a whole new aspect to the strategy.

I hate games where one team is miles ahead of the other. Close games are better entertainment.
-- waugsqueke, Apr 01 2003


Wow - viscious.

I can only imagine the joy on my face, had this been a school sport when I was there (would've been on an inside hockey pitch, but that would be cool too)...

[+]
-- SpeedDemon, Dec 08 2003


Concept would work well with other games. Soccer, basketball (using two basketballs?), maybe rugby.
-- booleanfool, Apr 24 2004


Deja Vu - and I still think it's a great idea.
I remember a long debate about who plays who. There was also a long debate about number of pucks and culminated in someone coming up with a formula for number of pucks for n-goal hockey.
Anyway, I'll start that debate again...was that two pucks or three?
-- goff, Apr 26 2004


Typical score: 0 - 0 - 0.
-- phundug, Apr 26 2004


Only one puck in my version.
-- waugsqueke, Apr 26 2004


Deja Vu=goff.
-- blissmiss, May 25 2005


This would be particularly interesting with some of today's newly adopted rules. No two-line (three line?) passes means the ability to open up your game to a whole new level. Tons more open ice too with fewer players on the ice per team.

Croissant!
-- kdmurray, Nov 17 2006


Bun, because three-team sports are an inherently cool idea, and because you've solved the biggest problem with them: ganging up. In effect, you've combined ice hokey with jankenpon (paper, scissors, rock).

In fact, you've got me rethinking my three-team basketball idea. Yeah, I think I'll look that over, with this in mind.
-- Xenophile, Jun 05 2012


I was about to start looking at [waugs]'s old ideas and Lo!, someone started recycling them.
-- UnaBubba, Jun 05 2012


Could you swap around each period so that team B didn't beat team A simply because team C had a poor defence? So for example in the first period A attacks B, but in the second period A attacks C? Would that work?
-- Fishrat, Jun 05 2012


If the teams score, rather than are scored against, then ganging up shouldn't be a problem anyway. That is, there is no advantage to team B in helping team A score.

Even if teams are scored against (that is the objective is to minimize the number of scores in your goal), a team can't win by teaming up, only force another team to lose.
-- MechE, Jun 05 2012


Why stop at 3? Why not n? And why just hockey? Any 2 team game can be an N-team game with the correct polygon of N sides.
-- bungston, Jun 05 2012



random, halfbakery