Olympic Hockey Overtime Rules: Why three-on-three, review systems and blended officiating have the game divided

Olympic Hockey Overtime Rules are at the center of a fresh debate after roughly 34 hours of tournament play — from early Wednesday morning to Thursday afternoon — produced multiple late-game drama moments and exposed the limits of current tiebreak formats. The sequence underlines why excitement and criticism are colliding over how Olympic sudden-death should be resolved.

Olympic Hockey Overtime Rules: the formats fans saw over 34 hours

Over about 34 hours, spanning from early Wednesday morning to Thursday afternoon, several high-stakes games reached tied scores at the end of regulation. Three of the four men’s quarterfinal games on Wednesday and the women’s gold medal game on Thursday were each tied at the end of regulation, and in each of those four games the game-tying goal came with less than 3: 30 left in the third period. Those finishes were compared to the stakes and feel of a Game 7.

How the Olympic overtime formats were described

• Group stage and preliminary medal round: same as the NHL regular season — 5 minutes of three-on-three followed by a shootout.
• Quarterfinals and semifinals (first description): 10 minutes of three-on-three followed by a shootout.
• Finals (first description): recurring 20-minute periods of three-on-three until there is a winner.
• Alternative proposal appearing in the same coverage: group stage remains 5 minutes of three-on-three then shootout; medal round preliminaries, quarterfinals and semifinals would be 10 minutes of five-on-five followed by a shootout; men’s finals would start with one 20-minute period of five-on-five, and if still tied then either a three-on-three period or a shootout could follow.

These competing structures were presented together in the recent coverage, underscoring that multiple overtime models are being debated for the tournament.

Why critics call three-on-three overtime a gimmick

Three-on-three came in for sharp criticism. The format was called gimmicky: it guarantees a winner, which is appealing in regular-season settings, but it was argued that three-on-three is not a true decider of which team is better when the games matter most. The change that removed ties in the NHL after the 2004 lockout took several iterations to land on the current five-minute three-on-three followed by a shootout. Critics say physicality and toughness, pillars of hockey through the first three periods, are marginalized in a three-on-three environment and that tough, physical players are often not used.

Supporters of playoff-style hockey point out that three-on-three disappears in NHL playoffs, which are described in the coverage as decided by “real hockey. ”

Officiating and review: blended rules and the Situation Room debate

The tournament has also highlighted a blended approach to officiating and review. The blended rulebook used in the Olympics is almost identical to the NHL rulebook, but not entirely. Pierre LeBrun noted that the blended approach left a few differences between the IIHF and the NHL. A recurring feature in commentary has been a column that convened jurors — Sean Gentille, Shayna Goldman and Sean McIndoe — to examine those differences; they placed seven differences on trial and excluded the items about switching ends for overtime and players losing their helmets from consideration.

One of the discussed differences concerns video review: in the NHL, in the last minute of play in the third period or at any time in overtime, the Situation Room in Toronto can initiate a review. In the IIHF, teams must initiate a coach’s challenge at all times in the game. The jurors’ responses to the idea of adopting the IIHF approach in the NHL were unanimous: McIndoe resisted it on the grounds that coaches might challenge every goal, Goldman did not favor risking coach challenges in final minutes or overtime and Gentille offered an emphatic rejection. An editor’s note in that commentary added that the panel’s hypothetical rule change was not actually binding, and McIndoe added a follow-up that it should be binding; those meta-comments were part of the discussion.

The coverage also said that referees in the Olympic tournament will not have people in a Situation Room to influence their decisions on video review. While the refs will be speaking on a headset with someone helping them navigate the replay, only the referees will be directly involved in the decisions — the remainder of that description is unclear in the provided context.

Practical limits: player safety, logistics and why a gimmick persists

Commentary conceded that the NHL will not allow Stanley Cup–style playoff overtime rules (five-on-five until decided) in the Olympics. The reasoning given was that players need to return to NHL duty and the league would not accept games extending to two or three overtimes. Coverage also noted a logistical constraint: the Olympics are not designed to accommodate very long games because volunteers and staff may have other responsibilities at different events. The combined effect, commentary argued, is that at some point organizers will choose a gimmick to limit marathon games.

Separately, one technology note appeared in the recent coverage: a major site warned readers that its platform was built to take advantage of the latest technology to make it faster and easier to use, and that some browsers are not supported; readers were advised to download a compatible browser for the best experience. That technical notice ran alongside analysis of the on-ice debates.

Overall, the coverage juxtaposes spectacular late-game drama with persistent complaints about three-on-three formats and mixed approaches to review, leaving the tournament and its future overtime rules subject to ongoing debate.