DALLAS (AP) -- Detroit's goal with a guy barely in the crease, if at all, didn't count. Dallas' goal with a guy clearly in the crease did count.

Apparently, that's what it takes to slow the mighty Red Wings.

I don't suppose that this is the kind of publicity that the NHL wants.

I was curious about the Interference of the Goalie call, and so I went to the rulebook.  The rule is pretty clearly stated, but here's the part that really gets me.  "Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.  The rule will be exclusively enforced in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review." 

In watching the entire reply of the controversial non-goal, Holmstrom slid across the front of the crease in front of Turco, but never actually got into the crease.  The shot was fired, and Holmstrom basically screened Turco - a perfectly legal move in hockey.  But the refs were immediate in their decision.  Waved off.  No goal.  Evidently it was reviewed, but I guess that the underlined part of the rule was returned by Toronto - its the refs call.  They waved it off.  Toronto was not in a position to overturn the call.

One rather astute Detroit Red Wings fan tonight in the ESPN conversation suggested that the reason that Holmstrom's goal was disallowed was to send a message to Detroit that his incessant crease-crashing antics were not going to be tolerated any longer.  Maybe Dallas' coach finally got the ear of the refs.  Maybe Gary Bettman or Colin Campbell informed the referee group tonight of exactly what Interference of the Goalie meant.  No matter what you believe regarding that particular comment, what is not disputed is that the ref was immediate, and obviously believed that he saw something in Holmstrom's move that constituted goalie interference.  He was not wishy-washy about it - he simply waved it off.  Period.  End of story.

Obviously, tonight or tomorrow on referee review, this particular call is going to be discussed heavily and at length.  The ref is going to have to explain what he saw, and why he made the call when he did, especially in the light that it was the wrong call.

Now I don't tend to bash refs.  They have an impossible job.  They are simply wrong 100% of the time in the eyes of the fans no matter what they do.  Allow the goal and Dallas goes ballistic.  Disallow it and Detroit loses their mind.  We, as fans, and TV hockey analysts get the benefit of four or five angles of the play, slowed down a great deal so that the details can be reviewed carefully and at length, and then they get to criticize all that they want.  The same is true in the NFL and Major League Baseball especially.  But when you see a play that takes less than two seconds in real time to occur, you have to call what you see.  There's no other option.  The ref saw goalie interference.  He saw what he saw.  No one else knows what he was thinking except him.  And now that we can review it in slow motion, we can all complain a great deal.  And yet, watching that same reply in real time - it was so quick.  Shot, goal, celebration, dismay.  In the time is takes you to read those four words, the play happened.  That quick. 

I am not a believer in conspiracy theories, nor do I think that the refs are biased one way or the other.  It seems everyone has been down on officiating this year, but as more cameras and angles come on line, it's more and more obvious that no matter what the refs do, they're just wrong.  So - it's not a conspiracy.  It's not that the refs were out to get Detroit, force a game 5, generate more revenue, or any other wild and crazy half-witted theory that's been going around on the 'net tonight.  It's that a split-second play resulted in a split-second decision, and tonight it was the wrong one.  Hey, it happens.  It's too bad, but it did.  No use crying over it.  But I think that nearly everyone that watches the NHL or takes an interest in the sport ought to read the rules.  They are what they are.  It could not have been overturned.  It was a split-second decision on a split-second play.  That's how it goes.