Anaheim Ducks upset over ‘mindboggling’ disallowed goal vs. Bruins

With just over 12 minutes left in regulation on Sunday night, Matt Beleskey of the Anaheim Ducks scored a game-tying goal against Marty Turco of the Boston Bruins, who had Ducks forward Andrew Cogliano standing inside his crease when the puck entered the net.

Ah, but it wasn't a tie game. Turns out the goal didn't count. The officials ruled that Cogliano was "in the crease" to disallow the goal, angering the Ducks bench:

Captain Ryan Getzlaf said (via Ducks Blog) after the game that the call reversal "kind of boggled my mind."

Said Beleskey, who believed the puck was in before he made any contact with Turco: "To me that's just a 'hope call'. They didn't really review it. They just decided, 'That's the call and that's how it's gonna be.' It's frustrating. That's a bit of a dagger to your season."

Said Coach Bruce Boudreau: "There was no explanation given to me. None. What do you want me to say? It cost us. It cost us the game. Sure they got another goal, but we would have played completely different if it was a 2-2 tie with 10 minutes to go."

According to the NHL rulebook, this play could have been interpreted in one of two ways:

According to Rule 69, if "an attacking player skates in front of the goalkeeper, well inside the crease, at the same time a goal is being scored. The attacking player remains in motion and, in the judgment of the Referee, maintains a significant position in the crease impairing the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal" then the ruling is "Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, 'No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.'"

Or …

According to Rule 69, if "an attacking player plants himself within the goal crease, as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored," then the ruling is: "Goal is disallowed. The announcement should be, 'No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.'"

So in either case, the correct call was made. It's a frustrating one for sure, as Cogliano didn't interfere with Turco. But by the letter of the current law, the goal shouldn't have counted.