This is in the rule about goaltender interference, right? So, if he didn't make any reasonable effort, it isn't incidental contact and thus a penalty. It certainly doesn't state that the goal should be disallowed even though the contact was incidental (unless I'm reading the rule wrong). I actually believe he was trying to play the puck and when he was working it out of the feet of the defencemen, he inadvertently ran into Fleury. I would be unhappy with, but could understand, a penalty in that situation. What I can't understand is no penalty and no goal. It's either incidental contact or it's not. But for people to contend that the contact was intentional seems ridiculous to me. As with JVR's, whose feet were tangled and he wound up falling backwards into Fluery (who was well out of his crease). The Flyers probably lose the game even with the goal allowed and other calls made properly, but that doesn't mean calls shouldn't be made properly.