IIHF under fire after controversy erupts following Women’s Olympic Gold

The IIHF is facing major backlash after Thursday’s women’s Olympic gold-medal game between the United States and Canada was decided in 3-on-3 overtime.

The U.S. captured gold with a 2-1 victory, as Megan Keller buried the game-winner just minutes into the extra frame. American captain Hilary Knight had tied the game late in the third period, erasing a Canadian lead that had stood for much of the contest thanks to a shorthanded goal from Ontario’s Kristin O’Neill.

It was a dramatic finish to one of hockey’s greatest rivalries, but not everyone was celebrating the format.

Almost immediately after Keller’s winner, fans, pundits and insiders took to social media to question why a gold medal, awarded only once every four years let’s not forget, was decided in 3-on-3 play instead of traditional 5-on-5 hockey. No matter which teams end up in the finals.

“Why a Gold Medal game has to be 3V3, despite being full 20 minute periods, is very much beyond me. Normalize full strength do-or-die games, please,” one user wrote.

Another added, “3v3 is fun to watch but they should play 5v5 to determine the gold medal.”

A third comment captured the frustration many felt: “I love 3v3 overtime hockey… in the regular season. It should be criminal to end any playoff-type game with 3v3, let alone for the GOLD MEDAL IN THE OLYMPICS THAT’S ONLY PLAYED EVERY FOUR YEARS.”

While Team USA celebrates another historic gold, the debate over how championship games should be decided is only just beginning. the IIHF might have to face reality, and some tough questions…