Release from 08.03.2025

Clarification by the Situation Room of incident in HCB - VSV game

Short text 158 CharactersPlain text

The following is a clarification by the Situation Room of an incident in the HCB Südtirol Alperia vs. EC iDM Wärmepumpen VSV game, played March 07 in Bolzano.

Press release 2616 CharactersPlain text

Regarding the incident between EC iDM Wärmepumpen VSV player Philipp Lindner and HCB Südtirol Alperia player Braden Christoffer, shortly before the 2:1 was scored, the outcome is supported.

According to the rule book:

  • the officials did not have to stop play immediately due to an injury
  • The contact between the 2 players is considered inadvertent/accidental, as the HCB player is in a shooting motion
  • And the goal must remain, as there is no criteria to disallow the goal.


Further explanation to the points mentioned:

  • An inadvertent motion in hockey typically refers to an accidental or unintentional action. The action may make contact with an opponent, but the player did not intend to strike them in a violent or harmful manner.
  • Christoffer’s action is considered accidental or inadvertent, due to the following criteria:
  • Christoffer is driving the net, with his focus at the puck along the boards, not behind where Lindner is approaching.
  • Lindner engages Christoffer from behind at the precise time that puck is received and Christoffer begins his shooting motion.
  • Christoffer intent was to play the puck, in which he did and his body movements align with playing the puck justifying why is right arm is back. Christoffer, with a play on the puck, did nothing to show intent or purposely altering to make head contact with Lindner
  • In reference to the game officials stopping play, the wording is may, not must.


Rule Interpretation applied: When a Player is injured so that they cannot continue play or go to their Players’ Bench, the play shall not be stopped until the injured Player’s Team has secured control of the puck.

Why did it go to a Video Review:
After the goal is scored, securing the 1st stoppage in play, it was reported to the Referee that an elbow occurred. To go to video review, the Referee must initially assess a 5 minute and GM to have the ability to video review. After review, if was deemed the arm action of Christoffer was caused by the shooting motion, not worthy of a 5 min + GM.

It is conclusive that the infraction is not worthy of a 5 min + GM. As many think that if a penalty was assessed, the goal would be disallowed. If after video review, it is determined either no penalty or a 2 minute penalty, the goal shall be allowed.

In conclusion:

  • Incident is not worthy of a major penalty
  • Not nullifying the goal, is the proper decision
  • Game Officials may stop play, not must, due to an injury


The outcome is supported by the League. 

Situation Room provided the following video: