There is a rule book out there...
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).
The Caps player made incidental contact with the goalie in his crease right before the goal was scored. Clear-cut goalie interference, by the book. No goal.The Hellebuyck goal falls under the Rule 69.7 exception part of the goalie interference rules:
69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed. If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the goal can be permitted.
The NHL and refs decided that the contact was incidental as Guhle and Hellebuyck attempted to play the loose puck in the crease. I'm pretty sure they blew that call, because Guhle didn't make any play on the puck and just used his stick to push Hellebuyck into the net, but if the ruling is incidental contact, then that's a legal goal. People are getting confused by the second paragraph - where you can't push the goalie and the puck into the net simultaneously after the save, but that's not exactly what happened. In the refs'/NHL's eyes Hellebuyck was pushed into the net through incidental contact during pursuit of a loose puck, and then the puck was subsequently fired in.
