Review of the goal took like 2 minutes and it clearly looks like it wasn't in and they called it a goal. Luongo looked like be kept the puck out but some how the replay in the war room say it's in even though it really never looked like it was.

the puck was in his leg pad, and his leg pad clearly crossed the line. but they never actually saw it, i dont think. but that puck was in the net.

But don't you have to physically see the puck completely cross the line? I've seen goals that are ruled no goal because the goalie covers it with his glove, so you can't tell if the puck completely crossed the line or not, even though it's pretty obvious that it has.

It's kind of a BS rule anyways, I mean even if the puck crosses the line but goalie covers it with his glove or it gets stuck in his pad, everyone knows that it crossed the line. But it's not fair that so many goals have been called back for that reason but they will call others like this one a goal.

That's what drives me nuts about the officiating is how inconsistent it is.

Like the Briere "No Goal" on his wrap around.

The puck did not warp into another dimension.

As far as I know they can use common sense to make the calls. In this case, as irony said, they made the right call.

so if the puck is under the goalie, and his entire body goes into the net, hypothetically speaking, it would be a no goal because they couldnt see it? i think in cases like that and in this they just gotta use, like daz said, common sense. i think its a good call

I would enjoy video links of these things you talk about