[Dion]

Maurice comments on why he called for a review of the non goal.

Trouba says contact was unintentional.

"I didn’t do it on purpose. I’m honestly not really sure what the rule is there, if the crease matters or what it is. It was unintentional," Trouba said of the play. "I thought he was (outside the crease) but I don’t know if that has any impact on the decision or what the ruling is. Just continue to play. We did a good job battling back and getting back to our game after the first period."

Maurice was confused by the fact the referee originally signalled a goal, then changed his mind following a "team meeting" on the ice.

"For me, that’s enough indecision. It’s outside of the blue paint when it happens. When you’re trailing and you can make it 5-4, you’re going to run the risk (of a challenge)," said Maurice, who lost his time out as a result of the ruling.

"I think if the goaltender is out of the blue paint, you have the right to look at it and say, you know what, there was no intent for contact. It was incidental contact. If you’re outside the blue, we try to avoid (contact). (Trouba’s) head is turned up the ice, he’s trying to get back to the blue line. No, I don’t want it to be fair game on the goalies (outside the blue paint), don’t get me wrong. That’s not what I’m saying. That was situational. The ref called it a goal on the ice, then they changed their mind, so for me, there was some doubt there."

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...501062041.html