Jyrki21 wrote:The no-goal was, to me, the right call for the wrong reason. I don't think it's controversial that a referee can change his call before he "goes upstairs" (which shifts the burden of proof for the purposes of the review), though McGeough obviously should have signalled it better. But to me, the replay was conclusive. It doesn't matter that there were angles where it looked less certain -- there were also angles where it looked completely certain. Since both obviously can't be true, a less clear replay doesn't overrule conclusivity from a different angle unless it actually shows the opposite, which it didn't in this case (no replay clearly showed the stick not touching). A bank robber caught clearly on film doesn't get off because there was another camera in which his picture was blurrier.
The puck's trajectory changed precisely as you'd expect it to if that stick hit it. If Miller tips it, it flutters up (or shifts course very slightly), it doesn't angle perfectly downward in a straight line. And I think Craig Simpson's point about the celebration was bang-on -- while it can't be used as any sort of proof for the review, I do think it was proof that the right call was made.
Actually, your logic is good but I think you're looking at it wrong.
There was one replay that cleary showed Miller's glove deflects the puck THEN the stick waves by and the puck doesn't change direction at all. Thats the call that had me convinced, it was clear as day. All the other angles were inconclusive.
Lets face it people, if the shoe was on the other foot there would be hella whining & sniveling going on here.