[Captain_Obvious]

I fail to see the issue.

This case was a perfect example of why.

The ref behind the net pointed goal because his view was obstructed by the net. There were three other officials on the ice. They met, and asked who had a good view of the play. In this case I'd wager at least two of them did and once they conversed it was a pretty quick decision.

When things happen at that speed and views are obstructed I think it would be detrimental not to have all the officials on the ice confer when it's likely one or two of them will have had a much clearer look than the others.

That's what happened in this case, and the right call was made as a result. Fraser did a good job of breaking the process down:

Let us look at how the decision was arrived at on the ice since referee Tom Kowal initially ruled a goal on the play from his position on the opposite side of the net and toward the corner away from where Gagner remained tied up with Quick. Policy and procedure was followed to the letter when the four officials (Kowal, referee Greg Kimmerly and linesmen Ryan Galloway and Don Henderson) met at the officials crease and held a conference. Each official is responsible for reporting his version of the play as witnessed from his location on the ice at the time. A final decision is rendered through this process.