I haven't seen the play in question. Without that knowledge, I don't know the correct answer in that instance. Further, I don't see a place in the NCAA rulebook that covers this explicitly. However, my understanding is that if the first attacking player entered the crease after the puck, which I assume was the case from your description, he is there legally. If the puck exits the crease, he must also leave it as quickly as he can. If he impeded the goalie while in the act of playing the puck initially, that does not constitute interference. So long as he did not impede the goalie beyond that, it would not disallow any subsequent goal even if his otherwise legal presence in the crease prevented the goalie from making the second save. 

I believe that the keys are whether or not the puck entered the crease before the player did and whether or not he does his best to leave the crease when the puck does. If those are both true, it would not disallow the goal. 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Griebel" <[log in to unmask]> 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:47:06 AM 
Subject: Should Ferris's first goal have been disallowed? 

As the referees reviewed it, the announcers repeatedly focused on 
whether the shooter sweeping through Cornell's crease roughed the 
goalie. I didn't think that was the issue. 

Once the puck rebounded into open ice, the next shot entering the crease 
has to satisfy the requirement that the goalie's right to conduct his 
business within his crease, his exclusive right of domain, hasn't been 
infringed by a player of the opposing team entering the crease before 
the puck. In this case, the first shooter, who entered the crease by 
his own action, hadn't yet exited the crease completely. True, the 
percentage of body parts still in the crease wasn't great, but he was 
technically still in the crease when the scoring shot entered AND, in 
this case, his sweep through the crease definitely impaired the goalie's 
ability to recover from blocking the first shot and preparing to block 
the scoring shot in a way that wouldn't have been true if the first 
shooter hadn't slid through the crease. Strikes me that the substance 
is no different than when someone jumps into the crease, mugs or 
harasses the goalie in a way that denies him his right of exclusive 
occupancy to prepare for the block, then jumps back out just in time to 
be technically clear as the shot flies past the goalie who could 
otherwise have been prepared to block it. 

Is there a Supreme Court case here?