From CBC's Elliotte Friedman after talking to Mike Murphy from the NHL
"[Referee Mike] Leggo waves it off when the puck hits the post and starts to come to the net as a scramble develops. [In the NHL's video review room in Toronto] we're still looking at the puck off the post, then see the play with Leggo approaching net, putting the whistle in his mouth and he waves aggressively.
"The optics would have been better if we got him to put on the headset and asked what he was seeing... We spoke after the game, I told him it did go in, we probably would get some pushback and should have gotten him over [to the headset] for the optics of the review."
Interestingly, the review would have happened before the league office actually knew the puck was in the net. It's not uncommon to review shots off the post or wild scrambles near the line, but like San Jose's broadcast team (Buffalo's didn't show it), Murphy and his mates didn't realize it was a goal until after play resumed. A goal cannot count in that situation.
Despite all this, Murphy is adamant it was the right call under Rule 78.5.
"Had we called a goal against Buffalo it would have been wrong, because it shouldn't have been a goal," he said. "We should have done the headsets, because any controversy would have died. This type of play is not a rarity."
Now from me..
...you see Rule 78.5 states a goal shall be disallowed when,
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing the whistle.
The whole "well I meant to or I was intending to blow the whistle."
The NHL's version of a Cover Your .. Well you know.
Mike Murphy's explanation of Mike Leggo's reasons for not calling a call that should have counted doesn't come close to what I saw, but 10 people can watch a play and come up with 10 different versions of the event.
However one time I would love the NHL to "own it". Just one time admitting that they booted the call.