Lots of irony here. 99% of the people who would say that was the correct call are Boston fans (the other 1% being Flames, apparently). Most impartial observers I've seen comment on it thus far (great scientific sample, I know) think it should've been called a flagrant, with the same caveat being mentioned here about how it's not gonna get called in that situation. Doesn't change the fact that the act itself should've been called a flagrant and that the situational crap is nonsense. If the situations were reversed and it were called correctly, I'd be pissed that it was called (obviously) but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on or an argument to make.