Was Alex Burrows' goal good or not? It really depends on which team you're rooting for really because even as a die hard fan I thought the call would've gone either way, but because Mike Leggo originally signaled a no-goal, his original call stands.

In the NHL rulebook, Section 5, 39.4 (iv), it clearly states that:

"Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player's body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL."

First, the fact that after the puck hit Burrows' skate and then Barret Jackman's skate and in doesn't matter because it doesn't really change the call either way. If Leggo believed Burrows kicked it, it's a no goal. If Leggo believed Burrows didn't kick it, it's still good.

The distinct kicking motion, however, is what had Alain Vigneault livid at the bench. I think it's pretty clear that Burrows didn't kick the puck. The motion that Leggo saw was merely the puck hitting his skate with some force because Henrik Sedin wired it pretty hard and fast. I'm not sure if Burrows did attempt to kick it - if you watch the replay he saw Henrik and he must have known a pass was coming - but because the game is so fast what was a kicking motion AFTER the impact was deemed a kicking motion DURING the impact. Leggo clearly saw the latter and he didn't see any conclusive evidence that Burrows didn't attempt to kick it. Furthermore, I'm not so sure Burrows was entirely convinced he didn't kick it because he didn't really put up an argument. In a game which could've vaulted the Canucks into the top eight, the fans seemed more livid than the players themselves.

I was obviously rooting for a goal and was disappointed it was waved off, but let's give Leggo the benefit of the doubt here - he had little time to react and make the call. However, in his twelve years of reffing I don't think I've ever been as frustrated as I was with his calls last night. There was too much inconsistency with the whistles and Jackman's bare-handed punch on Burrows should've been at least a double minor. Burrows was clearly spewing blood on the bench and had to go in the locker room to get patched up.

<img src="http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091221/capt.84c3c878ce1a4addb9607302c50f5555.blues_canucks_hockey_vcrd105.jpg" class="imageFloatLeftFramed"> Congratulations are in order for Shane O'Brien, who scored his first regular season goal in 165 games. He got a little ahead of himself and really jumped up on offense a couple times but for the most part he was the lone bright spot in what really was an average game for the Canucks. It was a game in which none of the bounces went the Canucks' way, particularly Steve Bernier's two-on-one shot that hit the knob of Ty Conklin's stick. Let's be fair, though. The Blues came out with more energy and determination and the Canucks didn't really make Conklin's job any harder. For the most part their shots were relatively weak and the passes weren't as sharp or crisp, giving Conklin time to move laterally quickly enough to cover the net. The Sedins couldn't really get their cycle game going and once again it was Tanner Glass and Steve Bernier that had some really good shifts. Mason Raymond was his usual speedy self, opening up the ice and making good use of whatever room he had.

With the loss the Canucks are now 4-2 in their 8-game homestand and I noted earlier that they must win at least 6 before heading onto the road. They host the red-hot Preds (just on regulation loss in December) who are very well-coached by Barry Trotz and then the Oilers Saturday night. Two very winnable games but as always it'll come down to how hard the Canucks are willing to work for those points. The Canucks are more talented, deeper, and have the far superior goalie in net. There's no reason why they can't take those two games.