[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Koskinen's glove is white. Do you see any white at all after the goal post? I do see some orange visible behind the post. His whole mitt was behind the goal post.

This is a terrible view that communicates nothing meaningful about the location of the puck.

It was inconclusive and called not a goal because the puck could not be seen, it's ruled a goal if the NHL used proper technology.

That is highly debatable.

Here is the replay of Koskinen's save.



· Koskinen gets the puck in his glove at the 0:27 mark, and traps it against the post at 0:28. If the puck is trapped against the post, then it is most likely touching the goal line. If it is touching the goal line it is not a goal.

· At the 0:57 mark from the above-camera angle you can see Koskinen catching the puck in line with the post, and then trapping the puck against the post. In this better view, the puck is not just touching the goal line, it is still on top of it.

If it was ruled a goal by the ref, chances are it would have stayed. Ruling on the ice always stands with inconclusive evidence. There has been precedent in the past (I remember a goal ruled against Luongo since his whole pad was behind the goal post), it just wasn't clear and obvious enough in this case to rule a goal.

The goal-ruling on Luongo which I also remember was ruled a goal because his pad was clearly entirely inside the net with the puck underneath it. The puck—while not visible—could not have been anywhere but completely inside the goal.

This is entirely different from the situation on Saturday. The puck was inside the goal, inside Koskinen's glove, but also most likely trapped against the side of the post. Had this been ruled a goal on the ice, I am fairly confident it would have been overturned.