Pretty sure they changed the rule a number of years ago making the crease no longer off limits. Guys are allowed to be in there as long as they don't hinder the goalie. You'd have to prove that the player did. Usually that means contact imo. Jarry didn't even try to challenge. If he had he likely would have hit Carrick and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Imo that's on Jarry. And I say this as someone who plays goalie.
Yeah I mean if you're going to use the argument that Carrick, even though he didn't initiate contact, hindered the goalie simply by being in the crease, then you'd have to disallow the first goal by PIT, where Guentzel was in the crease screening Gibson. Similarly, you could also say he "prevented the goalie from challenging the shot" by virtue of being in his crease and in front of him. And that would be ridiculous, which is why the refs are given latitude, regardless of what the written rule says. The league even made a point to say something like that years ago, after goaltender interference challenges started, because at first it was being called way too strictly.
According to the rulebook, it doesn't matter.
It looks like Guentzel gets his skate out of the crease right as the shot was taken, so he might be okay there. That one's a lot harder to judge without some very precise replay, which is why it wasn't called on the ice. Carrick was fully within the crease. But Cronin might have gotten the call if he'd challenged that Pitt goal, depending on where Guentzel's skate was at the time of the shot.
A goalie would never not try to move into a space to make a save, because a forward was standing there, and he'd look like a fool trying to explain it that way. If anything I think Jarry attempted to run into Carrick to make it seem like he was interfering, and failed badly at it.
None of that is relevant. Carrick is fully in the crease, of his own volition, in a place where Jarry could potentially move. That's interference by the rulebook. It doesn't matter where Jarry should move or where he tried to move or where he actually did move. It only matters if Carrick is in a place that hinders Jarry's ability to move freely. He quite clearly was.
Id argue that this is not how the rule has been enforced for years. I don't think I have ever seen a goalie interference called with no contact with the goalie. I don't really disagree with what you're saying as rules as written but I do disagree with how it has been enforced. I say that as teams and players need to know how refs interpret the rules in order to adjust much like we have seen with changes to obstruction penalties over the years. To me that play looked like Jarry lost track of the puck and was too slow to react to challenge. Carrick did not affect his ability to stop the puck.
A goalie could "potentially" move ANYWHERE in the crease, so by that standard any goal with a player in the crease would be disallowed. Answer me this: when the puck goes in how many skates does Carrick have standing in blue paint?
Jarry felt a nudge on his right side, and he thought it was Carrick, when it actually was Karlsson. He tried a little elbow, and it put him out of position. He was trying to make it seem like he was "hindered", when distracted is the right word to use.
Here's another example.
That is the sad part. Fans, writers, broadcasters, apparently even coaches and players don't know the rule. McIndoe is the one who has explained it best in that Athletic piece I linked earlier. Because of that piece, as soon as they showed the replay, I began begging my television screen for Cronin not to challenge. I knew he'd lose.
Unfortunately the real sad part with your interpretation is,and this is just a guess, half the goals scored with traffic in front of the goalie should be ruled goalie interference.
That's the main point that everyone who's arguing the call was correct is missing, is that when the ref reviewed it, he should have seen exactly what you described. Jarry, for whatever stupid reason, overplayed to his right on a play from behind the net. It was straight HORRIBLE goaltending that caused that goal. Whatever Carrick was doing in no way impeded or hindered how he would have had to move to stop that puck. Karlsson, on the other hand???? Fwiw, I totally agree with call on the Talbot goal. You could easily see Tuch was in his way from where he was going/wanted to be.
They need more time. And Carlsson playing just now and then will make it take even more time to find the rythm, When this easing in period is over things will probably look better, i hope.
