Empoleon8771
Registered User
1) Perhaps it was the other ref? There are two now, you know. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
2) Rule on ice was no goal. Video evidence overruling on ice call needs to be conclusive. Obviously it was not. Therefore no goal.
You can argue all you want. Facts and rules aren't on your side. Sorry.
It was clearly conclusive, though. The puck was clearly going into the net already when the whistle blew. You have a very loose interpretation for what the word "fact" means.
This is funny, people would rather not accept rules of the NHL and argue out of ignorance because they just want to stroke their biases. This is just funny.