I would expect there are some heated threads about it elsewhere, but looking at those plays and reading the rules... I have to admit, it looks to me like the right calls were made. I'm not even sure how they could be deemed "questionable", aside from the fact that anybody will "question" in the heat of a game... but then the answer when watching the replays and reading the rules is pretty obviously "no goal".
6-2 didn't really reflect how close the game was aside from that. Too bad Ufko doesn't get to play for gold, he seems to have had a surprisingly good showing. 
www.sportingnews.com
I would expect there are some heated threads about it elsewhere, but looking at those plays and reading the rules... I have to admit, it looks to me like the right calls were made. I'm not even sure how they could be deemed "questionable", aside from the fact that anybody will "question" in the heat of a game... but then the answer when watching the replays and reading the rules is pretty obviously "no goal".
IIHF goalie interference, explained: Why USA had two goals called back in World Juniors semifinal loss | Sporting News Canada
The United States lost to Canada 6-2 in the World Juniors semifinals, but it did not come without controversy.
I guess I would have flipped those... the first one, it's more just because of the way the IIHF rules are whereas it would have counted in the NHL. But the second one... it was under the pad, and nowhere in hockey can you just come in later after it's covered and ram the whole goalie's leg into the net and call it a goal.
Good lord, this can't possibly make it through 1 minute of OT can it???? Imagine if it goes to a shootout and they just score on every shot for like 20 rounds...
