The Overtime Penalty Shot Rule

[alex]

I didn't follow PIHA prior to this season, so I don't know the answer to this question. Is the rule that any penalty in OT results in an immediate penalty shot a new rule? I've just noticed it mentioned in a few other threads and wanted to know what everyone thinks about it.

It seems to me, there's a lot of complaining about how it makes the game much more about the individual than the team, but doesn't PIHA's way of eliminating one player each OT make it too much about the individual and not the team? I wasn't at the PIHA Finals last season between Littleton and Philadelphia, but just looking at the results it shows one game went to the
3rd OT. So, that means a pivotal championship game was decided by two players going one-on-one. Is that right? And where do we draw the line on all this?

[GROWL]

Yes that is infact the rule and the reason for it is simply that it eliminates a major problem that arrises during overtime. When players take more then one penalty in overtime and man power drops to less then two players, since it starts out 3 on 3, it creates a problem. This happened last year with our minor team and since their was no rule in effect for that conflict, it was played 3 on 1 and the game ended with in seconds. The league fixed this situation by instituting the penalty shot rule.

The PIHA overtime format is a staple of the league. Like it or not, I don't see it going anywhere. If it is our one gimick, then I'll take it over ramps, square rinks w/bumpers, or weird off-sides rules.