At 8:33 of the first period in the Red Wings/Wild game, video review determined that the puck was kicked into the net by Minnesota Wild forward Nick Johnson's skate as he tried to control the rebound. According to rule 49.2 "a goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct motion to propel the puck into the net". No Goal Minnesota.
Based on the recent video reviews I've seen, I've determined a simple quiz to figure out if a goal should count or not:
Q1: Was the puck directed into the net by a foot?
A: Yes, there was an obvious intentional kick
B: Yes, but the motion was a natural skating motion, or the foot was stationary
Q2: Was the puck directed into the net by a high stick?
A: Yes, the stick was above the crossbar
B: The stick was off the ice but below the crossbar
Q3: Was there any contact between an opposing player and the goaltender?
B: Yes, but it appeared unintentional
Q4: Who scored the goal in question?
D: A Detroit Red Wings player
E: A Minnesota Wild player
Tally up the number of A's, B's, C's, D's, and E's. If the number of E's is greater than the number of D's, there is conclusive evidence to overturn the goal, and it should not be counted. Likewise, if the number of D's is greater than the number of E's, it should be ruled a good goal.
I really wish the refs...all of the refs in the NHL, would just start holding Detroit to a much higher standard because of that ****** ****ing "subtle" interference Mike Babcock preaches. Hes basically teaching them how to cheat, so the refs should respond by calling them for anything that even remotely looks like it might be interference.
And whats this ****? We get a PK before a PP? ****ing refs. What a joke.