I'm a fellow Sioux fan if I were in Michigan's position I would be upset but I'd understand why it was a no goal. If anything, it'd only fuel the Sioux to score even more. As the ESPN guys said, if this were in the NHL. It'd remain as a no goal. Common sense or not there isn't any CONCLUSIVE evidence. The way you use "conclude" is still making an assumption. Go ahead and try and label it any other way but the ref still is making an assumption. It was called a no goal on the ice, should've remained a no goal.