What about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0796IPywEPg&feature=player_embedded
That one was allowed, and just a few weeks ago too.
First off, here's the "goal": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkhe33alxCk&feature=player_embedded
Mike Murphy, the VP of hockey operations was on CBC after the game. Here is his explanation of why it wasn't a goal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=588v8BvGcnU&feature=player_embedded
The NHL rule book says (S 39.2 (iv)): (iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2.
Also, 49.2 says in part: A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking players skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking players skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.
Notice in the video where he says: "it wasn't a distinct kicking motion, but a kicking motion." He fully admits it wasn't a distinct kicking motion, and that is what the rulebook expressly states is required to disallow a goal. The capitalization of the words is in the rulebook itself - I didn't add it.