glen a richter wrote:
This series is reminiscent of the season I became a Blues fan... 92-93. 8 seed Blues of course stunned Belfour and the Hawks. The Preds are doing the same thing.
Hunger and intensity are an intangible but extremely important - the Preds have it and we don't. They also got a very generous call in which Crawford was run over in a clear case of goaltender interference and they allowed the tying the goal to stand (probably because Crawford was outside the blue paint when it happened). That tied it, the momentum swung and then it was over. Call it cup fatigue or whatever but the Preds just want it more and we look like we're just playing out the string. They haven't clinched yet so we still have a chance, although very small one - need to just take one game at a time.
I was watching that as it happened and the announcer was saying the same thing as you. I admittedly don't know exactly how the rule reads, but I didn't think it was interference because he was outside of the crease. The contact clearly impacted Crawford, but it also seemed incidental to me, and being outside of the crease, I thought that made it a non-call. That's just my perception though and not necessarily perfectly in line with the rules. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of that call that explains exactly why it was/wasn't correct.
The rule is incidental contact outside of the crease is allowed. Intentional contact outside the crease is interference. Refs judged the contact to be incidental.
Rule 78 (b) wrote:
If an attacking player initiates any contact, other than incidental contact, with the goalkeeper, while the goalkeeper is outside of his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.