[T]he goal/no-goal call is not subjective in the way of review on kicked-in goals or on sticks above the crossbar.

Or the way it would be if goaltender interference ever becomes part of a video review system. I’m not in favor of it. Never have been. The league simply would be replacing the subjective opinion of the referees with the subjective opinion of the league operatives in Toronto.

And just as what appears to be the very same play on a puck that goes in off a skate can, and has been, ruled a goal in one game but a no-goal in another because different people in Toronto are assigned the responsibility on different nights, the same scenario would apply when it comes to goaltender interference.

Football has been subverted by video review. It’s a good idea taken to such an extreme, it’s now bad in practice. Just because the technology exists doesn’t mean we have to use it. It’s kind of like, just because Twitter exists, it doesn’t mean we have to weigh in on every subject in the world.

Brooks continues at length (I happen to disagree with that; as far as I'm concerned, "Incidental contact" calls and, "We can only have the referee call the War Room to tell us hat he ruled" calls are stupid), and he also discusses the play of the Islanders and Martin Brodeur's future.