As mostly Hab fans has been pointing out, the refs ###t the bed on the 5-3 call for the Rangers.
Here is Kerry Fraser's take on tsn website
"When a dust up like this happened to me on the ice I always did my best to subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory (keep it simple stupid) to get the game going as quickly and efficiently as possible. There's no sugarcoating this one.
This is my penalty assessment on the play after watching the entire episode:
MTL: 2-Minute Bench Minor Penalty - Too Many Men on the Ice
MTL: Mike Blunden - 5 Minutes Fighting
NYR: Ryan Callahan - 2 Minutes Instigating + 5 Minutes Fighting + 10 minutes misconduct
NYR: Brandon Dubinsky – 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Hal Gill - 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Petteri Nokelainen – 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)
NYR: Michael Sauer - 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)
Montreal would then place a man in the penalty box to serve the bench minor and New York would have the option to place a man in the box to serve Ryan Callahan's minor or the logical move would be to have Brandon Dubinsky serve his minor on the clock so as not to sacrifice another player in the box when cancelling out the coincident major and minor penalties. The teams would play 4 on 4 (Not 5 on 3...)
Clearly Montreal had Too Many Men on the ice when Mike Blunden came onto the ice and made body contact with Brandon Dubinsky while Blunden's retiring teammate was still physically on the ice. (Rule 74.1 - If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.)
Dubinsky clearly had received the puck on the stretch pass and would be deemed in possession; therefore the check that was put on him by Blunden could not be deemed "interference". The contact was a perfectly administered body check (shoulder to chest) and would have been deemed legal save for the fact that Montreal had six skaters on the ice."
Interesting that you left out the second half of his analysis:
Take a breath here, Habs fans, as I attempt to make a plausible (or feeble) explanation as to why it might have been viewed otherwise on the ice by the ref(s). With the ragged line change the initial focus of the ref(s) might have been on the change and not on Dubinsky receiving the pass just prior to impact. Once impact was made the puck was clearly long gone from the immediate vicinity of the check. While this was the wrong assessment on a bang-bang play like this, a quick shift of visual focus of attention can result in a missed call. Blunden perhaps took the refs by surprise as much as he did Dubinsky. Plausible or feeble; you make the call!
To address another point in your questions, just because a penalty for Too Many Men is called it would not negate any other illegal act that took place on the play. For example if Blunden had slashed, punched, tripped, elbowed or fouled Dubinsky in some fashion he would be penalized accordingly and in addition to the Too Many Men penalty. If in fact Dubinsky did not have the puck or it was a reasonable distance from him then an interference penalty could conceivably be called. Not the case here, however.
In a perfect world an instigator penalty would have been assessed to Callahan for the distance he travelled to grab and start a fight with Blunden. The referee could then send a clear message that the initial infraction was being called (Too Many Men on the ice) and if restraint had been shown the non-offending team (Rangers) would go on the power play. Not the case here either as the wrong message was sent and the Rangers gained a two-man advantage.
The Rangers were able to score one power play goal with the two-man advantage.
That's the plain "No Sugar and K.I.S.S." answer.
End Fraser analysis and start mine:
And on another note fans need to drop the whole "refs are against us argument." well unless you are a pens fan, nothing to defend there. Go to the board of every team and you will see threads about that, we even had one on the rangers board early on in the season. How can the refs be against every team in the league? I keep reading in this thread about how the refs missed some tripping call here or there against the rangers, but no one mentions the Price tackle on Anisimov after Price misplayed the puck behind the net. Or Habs fans complain about the Subban penalty for snowing the goalie, when Dubi was called for the same thing in the Toronto game.
The fact is the officiating has been terrible since the lockout. There are a couple of reasons for that.
1. Refs are too easily influenced by the home building, captains, and star players who are so good they never fall down unless a player does something illegal to them (I'm looking at you Crosby).
2.Two ref system. How many times do you see a bad call made by the ref at the blueline when the ref down low is staring right at the play? That is unacceptable. Two refs dilutes the talent pool, just like 30 teams does. Refs call games and interpret rules differently. Two refs leads to inconsistency and confusion from shift to shift. I would like to see the NHL go back to the single ref system, although it will never happen.