In the Predators/Habs game Saturday night, Montreals second, go-ahead goal was ultimately disallowed after review (I believe the ref stated that after all four officials determined that the puck had not crossed the line). Now, correct me if Im wrong but I saw one official distinctly pointing at the net indicating a good goal but after an inconclusive review they overturned the goal. Shouldnt the ruling on the ice (good goal) stand after an inconclusive review? Why was this overturned? James Veaudry Pembroke, ON -- Hey Kerry, Youll get a lot of these, but why was the Montreal goal against Nashville Saturday night overturned? Eller puts the puck on net and the on ice ruling from the ref behind the net is a Montreal goal. After much delay, the same ref announces that after a review with all on ice officials, the ruling is the puck never crossed the goal line. How is this possible? Ive always believed that if the video review is inconclusive, which it obviously was, then the call on ice stands. How is the other ref from the blue line supposed to tell if a puck crosses the line? Let alone be able to overrule the ref inches away. The ref simply changed his mind after the play. Is that allowed? Sounds pretty shady to me. Thanks, Dave -- Hi Kerry! Last night I was bouncing out of my chair with excitement when the red light came on, Lars Eller celebrated and the referee pointed indicating a goal in the third period. Then suddenly the referees decided to review the play as there was question about whether the puck had actually crossed the line. After watching the replays myself, it was unclear whether the puck made it over the line or not because it was hidden under Rinnes body. Seeing this, I was all but sure that the goal had to stand, because from my understanding the referees needed undeniable evidence to over-turn an on-ice call. But that wasnt the case. The referee announced that "The four referees agree that the puck did not enter the net" which indicated to this viewer that, they too were unsure but had a chat about it, and I suppose used their judgment, to deicide the puck had never crossed the line. What I dont understand is how they can make this new judgment with inconclusive evidence? Moreover, how a referee can clearly call a goal a goal, and then change his opinion moments later? Could you clear up my confusion with the rules on this matter? Thanks! Rob -- To All Disappointed Habs Fans: Upon further information gathering from all vantage points on the ice by the officiating crew, including a seemingly definitive confirmation from the situation room video review, the referee on the goal line changed his initial quick reaction decision and correctly determined that the puck did not cross the goal line - no goal! At no time do we see the puck cross the goal line on this play. The official statement found on the Situation Room blog posting at NHL.com is as follows; “Video review determined that Montreal Canadiens forward Lars Ellers shot did not cross the goal line. No goal Montreal.” (See Situation Room review here. Having witnessed referee Chris Rooney point to the net to signal a goal I trust it is the referees announcement that is causing you confusion (“The call on the ice by the four officials that the puck did not cross the goal line and that is confirmed (by video review)…”) and not the correct final decision that was ultimately rendered. All confusion would have been eliminated had the announcement by the referee simply been; “Video review has confirmed that the puck did not cross the goal line, the initial call on the ice is overturned - no goal.” Let me explain the protocol and how the process most likely worked in this situation. In the event that video review returns an “inconclusive” verdict the referees are required to make a decision (communicated with a point into the net or washout signal) from their vantage point when it appears the puck has entered the net. Sometimes the “vantage point” a referee has in that moment is not always the best one. For this reason, the four officials on the ice are required to conference and provide input from their respective vantage points as an added ‘safety check. This is in addition to video review that takes place. Through the conference process considerable doubt must have been created in referee Rooneys mind and caused him to change his initial reaction to the play. The obvious answer is the referee needs to see the puck cross the line before pointing to the net. In real time other factors can complicate this decision. In fairness on this play, the referees approach to the net was from the opposite corner from behind the goal line. This route caused an obstructed view looking through the net and the back of Predators sprawled goalie Pekka Rinne. The refs focus was also split between a penalty that he signaled to David Legwand for cross-checking Eller just as the Montreal forward flipped the puck toward Rinne. With Rinnes body position sprawled deep into the net and across the goal line, Rooneys gut reaction and instinct told him the puck had crossed the line from his vantage point. As required, the ref made his initial decision but once a consultation took place with the other crew members Rooney correctly changed his opinion on the play. It would have been less confusing and more efficient had the ref not communicated the result of the Officiating Crews ‘internal process that caused him to change his initial decision on the play. In the end the right decision was rendered. Sometimes the less said the better! Mike Ditka Jersey . The cause of his death is as of yet undetermined, but police said foul play is not suspected. Josh Woods Jersey .twitter.com/xBTpoAKLJk — Daryl Zerr (@darylzerr) May 29, 2014 @BarDown I give to you the @SquirrelsNCHL aka the Fighting Squirels. http://www.custombearsjersey.com/custom-...arge-1536t.html. TSN Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie tweeted Monday morning that Callahan - who is set to become an unrestricted free agent this summer, is now open to a six-year contract at less than $7 million per season. Reggie Phillips Jersey . Go to turbozone.ca to see more of his epic work and you can follow him on twitter (@Turbo_Zone). Gaurav Shastri - A tribute to the amazing fan base who stand outside during games at "Jurassic Park" and an unbelievable shot of Paul Pierce fearing a Raptor. Akiem Hicks Jersey . Raymond, 31, started 15 regular-season games for the Stamps in 2013, racking up 51 tackles. He also returned two kickoffs for 79 yards including a 61-yarder.TSNs Jack Armstrong offers his thoughts on the surprising Indian Pacers, a passive Chris Bosh, John Beilein as a head coach candidate, Scott Brooks big test and the breakout opportunity for Kawai Leonard. 1. Indiana Pacers: Who were those guys on Sunday? Wow. Where you been? Complete and total all-around performance on both sides of the ball. Can they sustain this for three more wins? Not convinced yet but they surely gained confidence that if they play to the level of their potential like Sunday, they can go toe-to-toe with Miami. 2. Chris Bosh (Heat): Too often was passive on Sunday and didnt exert his will. Hes a tough cover on the perimeter for David West and Roy Hibbert. Must show up and play with more energy and efficency. When hes making his mid-range jumper along with a few 3s, the court gets spaced out and the Heat are tough to stop. Need him engaged defensively and on the boards as well. 3. John Beilein (University of Michigan): Ive said all along the best target for GMs looking for a head coach was Stan Van Gundy. The Pistons made a smart move getting him. Now I will follow up once again on what Ive said many times before. If you are a GM thats progressive and willing to think outside the box instead of hiring a retread former head coach or some name ex-player, go get this guy. Pound for pound as good a coach thats out there today. Some college coaches cant or wwont make the NBA jump.ddddddddddddI have NO doubt that hed be an outstanding coup for a pro team. Hes a brilliant tactician, developer of talent and as imaginative an offensive mind that youll find out there today. It will take an owner and GM that have a true sense of the sport but if I were in the shoes of one of the five current teams with an opening, I would be trying to convince him to join my team. Teams spend a fortune in salaries and trying to develop young players yet throw money away doing the same old, same old. I assure you that this guy has IT. Makes a lot and actually too much sense to me. 4. Scott Brooks (Thunder): With Serge Ibaka out for the series, the head coach of the Thunder needs to mix/match with his front court rotations and find a way to get Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook in space to create tremendous scoring chances yet make sure the ball moves with a purpose and not be too ISO oriented. Balance and proper usage are critical here. Major test of his creativity. 5. Kawai Leonard (Spurs): Last years playoffs were a breakout forum for him and that has to continue here. Outstanding defender who will have his hands full at his position and has the shot-making ability on the perimeter to impact the series. He must be that consistent player with all aspects of his game. Need big-time effort out of a guy that can greatly impact the series. ' ' '