My
I know there doesn’t have to be contact. But there has to be visual evidence that Hyman’s presence prevented Rittich from doing something. And that simply doesn’t exist. Like, Rittich lunges out with the intent of covering the puck and in fact almost gets there before Nylander knocks it under him.
You can’t argue that he prevented Rittich from doing something when the video shows Rittich attempting to do the exact thing you’re arguing Hyman’s presence prevented him from doing.
My Take is Nylander interfered with Rittich just before he scored, more than Hyman. Hyman's presence their was equally a result of Flames defender, but Hyman remained in the crease, made contract with Rittich before any Flame gained puck control and before the ouck crossed the line. Then, Nylander misfires on his 1st rebound shot attempt, hitting Rittich's leg with his stick, follow through. Nylander is encroaching the crease on his own esteem. His contract with Rittich delayed Rittich's attempt to reach the loose puck. Nylander's reaction time on 2nd rebound beat Rittich to smothering it, right after Nylander's conract with him.
I have seen numerous previous contact in crease assault on loose pucks, rebounds near the crease, result in being called back on goals efentually scored. Those rulings were that the goalie was contacted in his crease just prior to puck crossing the goal-line. And that an opposing player was encroaching the crease prior to a goal scored.
These similar criteria happened here ( there).
That is my understanding and opinion. Should have challenged based on recent previous calls of similar nature.
I move on now and have lost a bit more faith in Ward, and coaching/ management running this rendition of "Flames".