So, the main conclusion I can draw is that the more experience one can draw on, the better, so that the referee can draw from many situations he has seen before.

Ideally, a referee would have infallible photographic recall, like Rain Man:

“The skater had definitively posited himself in a way that made him highly vulnerable to any contact from the back, therefore, the checking forward did not intentionally -
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner!!!!!”

That’s why I feel for whatever ref washed out Ovie’s goal in Game 7 against the Habs. From his vantage point, at NHL speed, it is actually impossible to determine whether Knuble made contact with Halak inside the goal crease. That play was as close as you can possibly get, and his vantage point is obscured by Halak’s body. Had the official been positioned in the opposite corner, it may have been a different call.

By my reading of the rulebook, if the official had called the play a goal, the play could have been reviewed in Toronto and determined to be no-goal (if appropriate). Because the call was no-goal, the play can’t be reviewed. Ironic: Had the Ovie vs. Gill goal in February counted, and Montreal went on to lose the game, the Habs might have missed the playoffs entirely.

As a kid, my Dad always told me that bad calls happen, but if a questionable call decided a game, you just didn’t play well enough to win.

You can train your eyes all day long to see as quick as possible, but we’re talking about 300 milliseconds to see a 95-mile-an-hour fastball coming from a professional pitcher’s rubber to home plate

So what about the guy standing there trying to swing a bat and contact the ball?!