I watched the replays on CSTV over & over and that clearly seemed like a 
goal to me.
The BC  forward entering the crease (puck was already there, so that wasn't 
an issue)
looked like he completely whiffed at the puck, shortly before the puck came 
bouncing
into the crease and  through the legs of Vermont defenseman, inside the 
left post and
over the line.

This was simply a classic case as to why instant replay should be considered.

-Andy



At 11:04 AM 1/20/2007 -0500, =?utf-8?Q?Richard_Henry?= wrote:
>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>AID=/20070120/SPORTS/701200316/1002&theme=
>
>Quting from link above:
>
>Then BC thought it had the tying goal at 15:06, a goal that Hansen finally
>deemed had been propelled over the line by illegal means, a call that
>prompted York to protest the game.
>
>"Scott Hansen explained to me was the goal judge told him it was a high
>stick," York said.
>
>York said Hansen said he didn't see it and that the puck had crossed the
>goal based on the goal judge's input.
>
>"Our protest is that, and (Hockey East commissioner Joe Bertagna) will
>take it under advisement, the goal judge is strictly there to tell the
>referee if the puck goes over the red line. That's his only job," York
>said. "It's not to call penalties, it's not to talk about high sticks.