Ron MacLean on HNIC

[loob job]

I honestly see nothing wrong with Perry's goal above.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by slybomb

The goal Corey Perry scored in OT of game 5 in 2015 is almost identical to the goal we had disallowed. Puck under Ramo's glove, Perry pushes it in from there. It's as simple as Anaheim gets the calls and Flames do not.

I don't know how to embed video but look it up.

What is identical about that?

[herashak]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Neither did Gibson

Bennett skated into the blue paint and had his leg blocking Gibson.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by herashak

Bennett skated into the blue paint and had his leg blocking Gibson.

Bennett is also engaged with a Ducks Dman pushing him into the crease.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I thought when you review a goal, you are only confirming/invalidating the officials on ice call - which in this case was the puck did not cross the line before the whistle/net comes off. At that point anything else is not reviewable. Yet they come back with the goalie interference reason - even though they can only review the once ice call and not anything secondary.

IIRR the puck did cross the line before the net came off which as you say was what Toronto should have been ruling on. So going by the rules, it was a goal.

[Blixa]

What about the goals anaheim had end of december against flames. There were two goals with goalie interference, by Vermette and Rakell. Or the LA goal of Pearson.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The NHL said "The situation room initiated a video review to further examine if the puck crossed the Anaheim goal line before the net became displaced. The referee informed the situation room that Anaheim goaltender John Gibson was interfered with before the puck crossed the goal line. This is not a reviewable play (by the league) and therefore the referee's call on the ice stands - no goal Calgary."

The referee said "The call on the ice stands, there is no goal, there was goaltender interference with the goalie."

According to Gulutzan he was told Toronto said it was goaltender interference.

The NHL statement said that goaltender interference isn't reviewable by the league, which means the referee shouldn't have mentioned interference as it wasn't relevant to the review.

Regardless whether the goal should have counted or not; this is a MASSIVE mistake by the officials (and I tend to think on-ice as they weren't giving proper information).

These are the NHL playoffs, the fact that this happened is simply unacceptable.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

The NHL said "The situation room initiated a video review to further examine if the puck crossed the Anaheim goal line before the net became displaced. The referee informed the situation room that Anaheim goaltender John Gibson was interfered with before the puck crossed the goal line. This is not a reviewable play (by the league) and therefore the referee's call on the ice stands - no goal Calgary."

The referee said "The call on the ice stands, there is no goal, there was goaltender interference with the goalie."

According to Gulutzan he was told Toronto said it was goaltender interference.

The NHL statement said that goaltender interference isn't reviewable by the league, which means the referee shouldn't have mentioned interference as it wasn't relevant to the review.

Regardless whether the goal should have counted or not; this is a MASSIVE mistake by the officials (and I tend to think on-ice as they weren't giving proper information).

These are the NHL playoffs, the fact that this happened is simply unacceptable.

Some would say your are not objective. Sad. Flames are GREAT.