If you do something with your car that ends up with it skidding on its side, that's a crash by any possible definition.
Probably, but this is a space probe, not a car. It's lighter than a car, and is operating in an environment with less gravity.
One of the legs broke off which requires significant forces not just a skid.
I mean if my car lands on the side and one of it’s wheels fell off that’s a significant crash.
The leg breaking off is probably the best supporting evidence towards calling it a crash, I'll agree with that.
"The only reason?" One reason for prematurely losing most of the investment is enough. The car analogy is inadequate but let's say my car skids gently into a position from which it won't start and I can't get out and I slowly die of starvation and/or hypothermia. Am I glad that I didn't "crash?"
I didn't say the mission was a success. I was addressing someone's nitpick over the definition of the word "crash."
If the space probe had a wiring failure after landing that caused the loss of "investment," that wouldn't be a crash. It would be a separate problem.
Relevantly, it sounds like this lunar spacecraft was still functioning after the hard (non-)landing. The only reason it died after that was because of debris settling on the solar panels, which made it run out of power.