What is your opinion of Lupul's goal in the 3rd?
 

Should it have been counted? Does anyone have video of this?

Yes. Just as the penalty to Richards was valid.

of course it should have counted. I dont see any controversy on that goal.

thank god we came back though.

as valid as kovy goal and richard penalty

nuff said

I think it counts but it is one of those really borderline attempts to put the body/body part in position to put a puck in. You'd need to debate for yrs.

They counted it, we tied and won, move on

yes. It wasn't the prettiest goal, but it was legal. The first Kovalev goal was more controversial imo

no doubt about it.

No kicking motion = good goal

anybody who thinks that is a kicking motion needs to take the habs goggles off

tough break but good goal.

flyers fan point of view:

Lupul- just hit off him..y not? has to be distinct kicking motion.

Richards- at full speed i thought it looked like a penatly..ill leave it at that. i wouldnt have called it with a min left tho :o

I don't know. From one angle it seems like it's unintentional, but then from another angle it seems like he moves his skate towards the net even though he's skating towards the boards.

Hmmm. What part of Kovy's goal was controversial to you? You think contact was above the bar?

Flyers were lucky to even go to OT. 2 of the 3 goals were luck + garbage. Next game they won't be that lucky and we will win easily.

poll closed?

I wouldn't of called Komisarek for interference because Upshall jumps on his back that lead the 3-2 goal either but all fans tend to forget the calls that go in their favor.

I agree that Kovy's goal was more borderline...as a hab fan, I'm sure as hell glad it counted!

Lupul's goal was more clear-cut. It was clearly legal.

Richards penalty was also very clearly a penalty.

I think it went in off his shinpad and was intentionally directed in. I don't even think it touched his skate.

My friend thought it went off his pad then his skate.

I need to see it again I guess.

You have to admit it was pretty close, thus making it easy for a controversy. Lupul's goal, however, I thought was an easier call for the guys in Tronna. It looked like a legal goal to me but Kovalev's goal took me more than a couple of glances to see that it was (in my opinion) legal.

Yes, it should have counted. He angled his shin pad to direct it in, but there was no kicking motion. No problem.

You aren't allowed to intentionally redirect the puck into the net with any part of your body (except skate with no kick), which he did.

you are allowed to redirect the puck with ur body (except hands). You just cant kick it in.

Goal was fine.

It was definitely a goal in my opinion.

I never doubted that it was a goal, though I had a faint hope that Toronto may conclude that there was a slight kicking motion, thus negating it.

He redirected it, but not with his skate. So it's a goal anyway.

I thought he intentionally thrust his leg and it went off his shinpad. Is this a new rule and you can do this now?

i think it was more him just skating forward then any "thrust" of his leg.