Saturday's ICE game between VSV and MilanoHC provided great entertainment in the Messehalle right up to the 18th penalty shot, and the long-suffering Adler fans were ultimately able to celebrate a 6-5 victory.
At the same time, this match served as a prime example of the constantly shifting approach to video reviews from game to game:
In a contest that was by no means heated despite the many goals, head referees Alexander Hlavaty and Federico Rivis (an oasis in the refereeing desert of Italy) alongside linesmen Petja Murnik and Ulli Padatscher delivered a strong performance and got the key calls right.
That included a high-sticking incident involving Blake McLaughlin on Kevin Hancock in overtime, which sent Hancock to the ice with a bleeding cut. The replay clearly showed a "follow-through" on a shot by McLaughlin, meaning the stick swung upward with the shot and caught Hancock. Hlavaty also gave an exemplary verbal and visual explanation as to why no penalty was assessed. The fact that stream commentator Gert Prohaska was unfamiliar with this rule cannot be blamed on the officials.
Far more interesting, however, were two video reviews on goals – both resulted in correct decisions, but the paths taken to reach them highlighted the problems with video reviews in the ICE.
Milano's goal for 1-0
On Michael Del Colle's shot, VSV goalie Joe Cannata felt obstructed by Giordano Finoro in or around the crease and protested fairly vigorously. However, head referee Federico Rivis, positioned close to the net, remained unimpressed and clearly signaled "goal."
VSV assistant Marco Pewal – connected with "eye in the sky" Lucca Ventre – then called for a coach's challenge. However, even after reviewing the footage, the referees stood by their call; even under today's strict interpretation, Finoro had, at most, screened Cannata outside the crease.
The coach's challenge was therefore unsuccessful, resulting in a two-minute minor penalty against Villach, which promptly led to Milan's second goal.
The problem here: That exact same sequence and the identical protest by Cannata (I always call this a "goalie's challenge") would have prompted most referees to head to the monitor on their own initiative – Christian Ofner, for instance, flashes the video signal faster than Lucky Luke draws his revolver, using it to keep complaining players off his back. A goaltender who holds back on gestures and words in such situations is only half doing his job in the ICE.
What required a coach's challenge on Saturday might have allowed VSV to get away unscathed on Friday or Sunday. The assessment of such situations varies greatly within the ICE, and foreign leagues have their own quirks as well. In Slovakia, for example, referees often stumble over to the monitor or phone without a single word of explanation. In Czechia, potential goaltender interference can only be reviewed via a goalie's challenge.
In Finland, on the other hand, the Liiga wanted to return this season to something abandoned in the ICE years ago: coach's challenges without the risk of penalties. Unsurprisingly, coaches used it as a tactical tool, and the experiment had to be ended prematurely.
Whether potential goaltender interference in the ICE is reviewed at the referees' own discretion or initiated by the teams is simply not subject to strict guidelines and changes from game to game. Another related issue, through no fault of the referees: most teams do not bring along an advisor for video reviews, at least on away trips, leaving the coaches to fend for themselves. On road trips, one team even resorted to relying on the bus driver for this task...
The goal to make it 3-4 for VSV
Scored by Linus Andersson on a rebound. Everything was clear around the crease, but was it also clear on entry into the attacking zone? Linesman Petja Murnik gave a clear washout signal, even though a Villach player was exiting the zone just as the puck was being carried in.
Somehow, Murnik must have had some gut hesitation after all. He and his colleague headed over to the monitor to review a potential offside, which didn't take long – the goal was rightly awarded.
A linesman going to the monitor on his own initiative? Is that codified anywhere?
No, neither in the IIHF rulebook nor in the ICE casebook. At IIHF tournaments (provided a video system is available), this is possible at best via a coach's challenge; offside is not listed among the situations eligible for automatic review. I also know of no other league in the world where a linesman is permitted to walk to the monitor on his own accord. Offside can either be challenged by the teams, who risk a penalty by doing so (e.g. Czechia since the 24/25 season), or, as in the DEL, not reviewed at all. In the NHL, the control room takes care of this, but only in the final minute or in overtime.
This quirk in the ICE was introduced mid-season three years ago, but was never put down in writing, making it one of the league's many informal rules that are best kept hidden from the public.
Lack of a clear line causes discontent and total ICE confusion
How is a fan or commentator supposed to know who initiated the offside review – the team or the linesman himself? At best, through an announcement stating either "Referee's decision" or "Coach's Challenge." But that often turns into a gamble: some referees forget to announce it, at other games the microphones don't work, music is blaring at the same time, or the arena announcer is bellowing into the building.
Offside therefore presents an even more glaring problem than goaltender interference; there are no guardrails. A dialogue like this is hardly far-fetched: Coach: "Ref, I think that was offside. Please take a look at it." Ref: "So you want to challenge?" "Why? Yesterday your colleagues went over to look at it on their own."
It is particularly telling that a Milano game of all fixtures highlighted such inconsistencies once again – a team that owes its league admission to the suspension of all rules.
Once again – no blame attached to yesterday's four officials; they were correct in all their decisions, and they bear little responsibility for the convoluted paths taken to reach them. Hlavaty and Rivis also showed exemplary consideration for the already tense financial situation in Villach, as well as that of the league itself: they refrained from making expensive long-distance calls to the command center in Ebensee...
