Patrice Bergeron goal overturned due to high stick (Update)

Patrice Bergeron came (this) close to scoring against the Pittsburgh Penguins. The goal was called good on the ice. It was overturned after a review because Bergeron swatted the puck with a high stick.

The video:

From the NHL's situation room:

At 10:00 of the first period in the Pittsburgh Penguins/Boston Bruins game, the referees held a group huddle that determined  Patrice Bergeron's stick was above the height of the crossbar when he deflected the puck into the net. Video review confirmed that group decision. According to Rule 60.5 "An apparent goal scored by an attacking player who strikes the puck with his stick carried above the height of the crossbar of the goal frame shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick." No goal Boston.

So to overturn a call on the ice, clearly there had to be refutable evidence of this. Better to get it right than wrong but good thing for the Penguins that there was apparently a "group huddle" to determine the call on the ice was wrong before the video review showed no goal.

Both angles seem to show that Bergeron's stick is over the crossbar ... no goal! What do you think?

UPDATE: The Bruins seem to not be happy with this call, or really anything from their eventual 3-2 OT loss to Pittsburgh.

From coach Claude Julien via of CSN New England:

“On that first goal, the closest referee calls it a goal. Then it’s no goal because the three furthest ones think it’s a high stick,” said Julien. “I guess that’s what’s frustrating in my mind. I don’t know what the league looked at. When I looked at the replay myself it looked more inconclusive. They may contradict me and say they had a better angle from where they were, but that’s how it looked to me."

There was another goal that was disallowed, but this one was called "no-goal" on the ice when the puck was redirected into the net off Carl Soderberg's hand. The Bruins took exception to this one as well following the game.

The video please...

Here is what resident Boston wannabe goon Milan 'one punched' Lucic had to say, again credit CSN New England:

“I thought it was a good goal. None of us made contact with the goalie. None of us – there was no batting motion with the hands,” said Lucic. “But it’s one of those things you can’t control. We all thought it was a good goal, and looking at it now it probably could’ve been the difference in the game. Referees have to go by their best judgments and it’s unfortunate that we didn’t get the call there.”

The NHL's perspective:

At 10:53 of the second period in the Pittsburgh Penguins/Boston Bruins game, video review confirmed the referee's call on the ice that Carl Soderberg directed the puck into the Pittsburgh net with his glove. According to Rule 67.6 "a goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net." No goal Boston.

In Lucic's defense, it was indeed a fast play, and it's tough to tell if Soderberg intended to direct the puck into the Pittsburgh net -- or even what part of his body mostly hit the puck. But the call on the ice was no-goal, and nothing from video review could really confirm that it should have been a goal.

Either way, it seemed like the Bruins arguments were more out of frustration of losing 3-2 in overtime to a rival, not on #rivalrynight, than anything.

MORE FROM YAHOO HOCKEY