DRAMA in Vegas! Dorofeyev’s goal is DISALLOWED!

1. Doesn't matter….the Knights went on a 5 goal run

2. Vegas still won

3. So we all saw it as a good goal even the NHL experts but the official had a different point of view 😂

4. Лига помогает Лавинам! Правильно делает. Больше заработает!)

5. that was a goal

6. Burns is a goon.

7. Both the puck and stick were above the goal when he hit it in. That’s not a goal. Yeah, the one angle finally shows he hit it with his stick. Both were above the crossbar. Commentator got it wrong. Stripes actually got it right.

8. Hate Vegas and rooting for the AVs, but that looked legit.

9. Even with that rob job let's go Vegas and good knights 🌙 🌃

10. Better team won anyway! Go knights!

11. Didn't need it anyway lol.

12. Столь подробно судьи просматривали запись и не увидели как его ударили клюшкой по лицу? Несомненно предвзятое судейство.

13. To me looked like it was above the bar when it contacted his stick .

14. He got robbed, mugged, assaulted, no goal and no penalties???

15. Very slightly over the cross bar but yes stick

16. As someone who doesnt like vegas. Thats a good goal.

17. PUCK DONT LIE

18. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🥅🥅🥅🥅🥅🥅.

19. Doesn’t matter the avs still lose!😂😂😂

20. I agree with everyone that the stick was the part that made contact. I wish they would have clarified why it was disallowed not just agreeing that it was disallowed. It did look like the blade part of the stick was above the crossbar. It does not matter what part of the stick makes contact for the high stick. If any part of the stick is above the crossbar then it is a high stick or purposes of disallowing the goal.

21. It's ok, we won. And they said refs are on our side lol

22. All good, 1 more win for vegas

23. I'm a carpenter..it was above the crossbar by a hair

24. If there is no goal, where is call for crosscheck or high stick?

25. Павлик чистый гол закатил,это факт,судья гол не засчитал,чтобы соперник не расплакался!!!

26. Good goal and no call on high stick. League dropped the ball on this pretty bad.

27. If it's his stick, it's a high stick

28. With speed set at .25 on youtube and zooming on the puck it is quite clear it touches the stick. But if the rule says it cannot touch any part of the glove it is tough to say for sure it didn’t. The player’s intention is quite clear though : he tried with his stick and never with his glove. But if the camera angle is good it is across bar. And there is a beautiful high stick by colorado’s #27

29. It was about 2 inches above the crossbar.

30. Refs wanted Colorado to win the game to extend the series as long as possible to increase the revenue for the NHL. Is this your first rodeo?????

31. Paid off the refs but vgk still won

32. It’s alright…… we’ll get 5 more…..

33. Well the refs and NHL want the Avs to win..How did that go?? VGK win!!! Now 3-0 in the series. That has to be killing the NHL officials.

34. Laughable. Just do away with video review if you can disallow that goal. Official who called that was behind the play. He's just guessing. Clueless

35. higher than the crossbar = no goal

36. Refs doing their own betting so VGK can loose

37. The referees are crosseyed messing up the call. That was too fast of a review specially in a game of importance.

38. Off the stick but the stick was above the crossbar. No goal.

39. Lol that was clearly a good goal. Bettman is trying to win it for colorado

40. That’s not DRAMA…If the league punished players for the dirty play then the league also must be punished for that “unfair” situation!!! After video review they can’t see high stick and cross check after all!!! Shame on you!!! Luckily VGN close that game…

41. And the AVs still lost lolll GG VGK.

42. Not enough evidence is fine… but how about the 2 penalties not called there… high stick and a cross check, this should have gone 5 on 3 for 2 minutes and the carry over power play time at MINIMUM

43. That was a clean goal. And no high stick called on a dirty shot. Clear bias on the side of the officials.

44. The puck was off the stick, but it was over the crossbar. It's a high stick

45. The decision was the height was fine but it was only disallowed because he hit in in with his glove. I guess the videos are useless since the one angle clearly shows it was off the stick.

46. 1st it was Makar bn out. Now this new excuse….ur outmatched, be gone Denver, and take ur Quebec Nordiques with you!

47. It 100% hit his stick.

48. If the goal was dis-allowed because it was hit in from above the crossbar, should the ref have said that, after the review?
    All the ref said, was the call stands.

Comments are closed.