The Flyers extended their season-high point streak to five games Tuesday with a 5-2 win against the Ottawa Senators at Wells Fargo Center.

Improving Flyers respond to defeat Senators

**I was flying mad at the disallowed goal from Turris. It was definately in. That aside the game was very intense with a horrible goal that Lehner should've got. The two goal that followed Turris disallowed goal was just pure lack of defence and Karlsson has got to make up his mind on what position he wants to play ;o) They better win tonight thats all I can say...

**Paulrus has gotta move EK to the forward position that EK already thinks he's playing, or bench him. We're like a quarter into the season and we're STILL losing games because of Karlsson not playing his position.

**Colin Greening is a one Tough Newfie, he was throwing bombs last night wheewww Lets go Sens. and That goal was is. we lost all of your momentum after that brutal call

**You must have heard of angles since you know so much about math. his skate was at ~45 degree angle and puck hit the top of his skate. listen genius, just because the blade of his skate is in the net doesnt mean his whole skate is. i though it was certainly close enough to warrant a review. the view towards the front of the goal was inconclusive. I saw no goal line cam view which would be definitive. toronto says no goal so no goal

**I wish I had a 3D TV like you guys so I could actually see what you are all seeing, or not seeing. I see a puck hitting a boot attached to a skate that was in the net. Does that mean the boot was far enough into the net to allow the puck to cross the line in it's entirety? The answer is inarguable - I don't know. Honestly you can never convince me one way or the other because on my standard non-3D TV doesn't show enough of where everything was. And it seems to me that the good folks in Toronto agree with me. And since I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their due diligence and looked from every available angle, I HAVE TO ACCEPT THE DECISION AND MOVE ON. The fact is it was declared no goal - whether it was in the net or not. If the Sens fell apart because of it, there is no one to blame but themselves.

**Wwe still would have won 4 - 3 so who cares and that was completely inconclusive so no goal.

**'red hot flyers' ? 5-3-2 in the last 10 is red hot? as for the most controversial goal of the year (based on the comments), i think you can assume it crossed the line barely, but until someone can show a picture of that, the call on the ice obviously would stand. also, i see no mention of crosby in the article or comments, so let me say: 1st!

**Jason Spezza, Milan Michalek, Jared Cowen and Chris Phillips are the biggest problem in this team right now. Spezza is no leader, the only thing he should be the captain of is the course errant drop passes. Milan has thus far been weak offensively but most noticeably, weak defensively; he losses puck battles 9/10 times all over the ice, abysmal. Jared Cowen is slow, both in skating a decision making; he looks lost, he is horrendous at dump and chase recovery as well as transitioning the puck (the guy cannot make a single tape to tape pass unless its cross crease to his partner).

**Point being he scored a goal from an almost impossible angle. And you can't count out his play against other teams best players. Which he's quite good at. I have zero problems with him getting a 3rd star.

**Haha, yeah, probably. You know when you don't score for 25 games, sometimes the net seems like you're shooting at a shoebox. But after you get one, even if it was the luckiest goal ever, you start believing you can do it again. I'm hoping that goal snaps him out of it.

**He was getting a point per game in the AHL last year during the lockout playing on the scoring lines and PP. I have no doubt he could do that in the NHL too. I think he's frustrated with his role playing on the 3rd line. He's never been out in that position before in his entire career, so I think that it definitely does play on his confidence.

**I doubt they were basing the selection off one play...Couturier had another monster night, dominating the Sens top line and leading the team in Corsi For

**I think everyone knew it crossed the line completely. But as the broadcast said last night, there wasn't conclusive evidence. Most assumed it went over. But in the NHL you can't assume it crossed over. Turris shoulda buried that anyway. Plus he was given a penalty shot which Mason stoned him on. So I don't wanna hear it from any disgruntled Sens fans. Turris was given a reprieve but blew it. Hey, how about that Steve Mason, huh? He's the Flyers MVP thus far this season. On a side note. Jim Jackson and Keith Jones have to be the best play-byplay guys in the NHL. Bar none. Fun to listen to Jackson and his call of the games.

**I saw it last night and thought it was in and just assumed that there wasn't enough evidence to turn it around. But after looking at it today, I don't think it was in. At least, there certainly isn't enough evidence to say that it was in beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fully crossed the line, it was by millimeters. If it didn't, it was by millimeters. I think that if it was called a goal before the review, it would have stood as a goal because they couldn't reverse it. This just isn't conclusive enough for anyone to say it was in or out.

**To cry over a single goal of the 10, yes 10 the team allowed in two games shows you clearly don't understand why your team lost. You think OTT sat in the dressing room afterwards obsessing over a single goal?

**At that time, Ottawa was playing better than Philly. They also scored 2 goals in 30 seconds after that happened. That one goal changed the entire game.

**No. My argument is that you're crying over the no-goal where there was no evidence it crossed the line. It bounced right off Grossmans skate and hit the line. Turris had a wide open net, yet couldnt capitalize. Shouldnt have been that close to begin with. Your team shouldve rebounded from the no-goal but instead they turtled. Cry about it "changing the game" but fact of the matter is, its the players fault if they did.

**Yes, the NON-Goal changed the game. It got the Sens down and the Flyers charged up. But if you're the team who's goal was disallowed, you gotta get past that and move on and TRY TO KEEP ON SCORING. The call was correct, there was no conclusive evidence to turn the call over.

**i believe they thought corvo would be a replacement of sorts for gonchar and that wiercoch had more upside than benoit, by were they wrong. hopefully hoffman get his shot i also wouldnt mind seeing buddy robinson come up, huge winger that impressed mac in the pre season.

**No way! Derek Grant has been one of our top players, did you not watch the recent games!... If anything, scratch spezza, michalek and cowen, send Conacher down bring up Hoffman.

**So because you were at the game, you somehow saw the play better than people who weren't at the game? Regardless of what your opinion is on the disallowed goal, that argument is bad.

**I also was at the game, and I can tell you it didn't go in. The Flyers scored a goal against Montreal earlier this year that didn't count, and it was all because the ref got whistle happy when it was obvious the puck had crossed the line. You didn't see any of us complaining about it, and we lost that game.

**How could you have seen it, all you could see is his right skate, which by the way was in the net. Everybody knows the puck crossed the line, but thats ALL based on assumption, "if his right skate was in the net and the puck hit it, then it must have gone in" and that is not enough to overturn a decision. It was the correct call by the refs and the replay board in Toronto, but it was a goal, philly fans and obviously sens fans know it went in.

**I dont think people realize that the puck has to cross the line FULLY. It definitely went past it, but when it deflected off Grossmans skate, it landed on the red line. Its a mute point regardless, and the fans just want to make excuses as to why they loss.

**The puck hitting the skate inside the net. Now is it completely over the line? When the puck hits the skate, you can clearly see white ice between the puck and the red line. Yes the puck is in the air, but look at where the puck hits the skate, its almost at his ankle. Look at the ice, you can even see the puck`s shadow past the goal line when the puck is just a couple of centimeters from the ice. So even if the shadow isn`t perfectly under the puck because of different lighting angles, the difference cannot be large enough to actually make a difference.

**For the love of god, you are CRYING. It has to pass the line fully. As everyone can plainly see, it hits Grossmans skate and then deflects and bounces right off the red line. It definitely passed over the line a bit, maybe most of the puck, but not the entire puck. I've been defending my argument the entire time, and all you;re doing is saying it changed the momentum. So for the last time, its the players own fault if it did. They've got noone but themselves to blame. Besides, this argument is so pointless because it happened hours ago and Toronto's the one with the special equipment to determine this stuff and they said inconclusive evidence. I'm not wasting any more time with it.