How can Bettman remain as commissioner...?

[Stoner]

PA,

 

All he had to do was not allow the throng of people onto the ice until after the play was reviewed. Real blankin' simple and IMHO not done because the league thought they'd look bad if the SC winning goal came after a review. They looked 1000 times worse by giving the SC away on a play that CLEARLY wouldn't have been a goal had it occurred in regulation time without the Zamboni doors open and pouring people onto the ice.

 

The replay of the play in question was never shown on the Jumbotron. I know for a FACT that the reason the play wasn't shown on the Jumbotron is the LEAGUE wouldn't allow it. (And who was the highest ranking league official in the building at the time?)

 

Also, the league's argument that Hull was in control of the puck is bull. Control and possession are 2 separate things; if they weren't, a guy fumbling the puck as he crosses the blue line wouldn't be offsides as a player in CONTROL of the puck may proceed it over the blueline. Possession is NOT equivalent to control. Hull did possess the puck (Holzinger could have legally sent him into Monday morning) after he shot. How in the hell does one control something he shot away?

 

How do you propose that Bettman could have stopped the throngs from entering the ice? I'm confused. Was he supposed to be in the replay booth or at ice level with a taser? Talk about micromanaging...

 

Lord knows, this league is near-incompetent on most matters. To suggest it is smart enough to prevent a replay from being shown (of a goal that initially generated no controversy whatsoever) is farcical. Yes, farcical. I just like saying it. Sorry.

 

The replay wasn't shown for a less interesting reason: the Stars just won the friggin' Stanley Cup on Buffalo ice. Why would it be shown? In hindsight, not showing it probably prevented a riot. It's the only blessing in disguise I can think of.

 

Say what you want about No Goal, but blaming Bettman is just downright ridiculous.

 

P.S. Didn't he control the puck by kicking it onto his stick?

[Stoner]

Video review the goal? I wouldn't have given them the cup in the first place until the arguments were settled. Remember the entire team was going postal on the refs. The game ended late, he got lazy and wanted it finished.

 

You wanted Bettman to video-review the goal?

 

I don't remember the team going "postal" on the ref after the goal.

[That Aud Smell]

Say what you want about No Goal

I will, thanks.

 

As we were walking down the stairs toward the HSBC lobby following the Cup ceremony, the tv monitors were airing the replay, and I heard some guy scream (as though his balls were being crushed in a vice) and then yell "HIS FOOT WAS IN THE F***ING CREASE! AHHHGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

From that moment on, I have felt nothing but fatigue for the No Goal issue and campaign. (Indeed, I had far more patience and energy for dissecting the lateral/forward pass from homerun throwback.) From the moment it was put on the books to the moment it was taken off, I didn't like the rule that B-Rett violated to win the Cup. So there's no way I could ever get purply and vein-bulgy in the face over a violation of a rule in which I never believed.

 

There's a camp of people who, like me, thought that the rule was crap, but nonetheless maintain that the lack of wisdom underlying the rule should not diminish the injustice done to the Sabres in 1999. I just can't get with that. From my hockey-sense perspective, it was a good goal. (Excruciatingly painful, to be sure, but "good.")

[Taro T]

How do you propose that Bettman could have stopped the throngs from entering the ice? I'm confused. Was he supposed to be in the replay booth or at ice level with a taser? Talk about micromanaging...

 

Lord knows, this league is near-incompetent on most matters. To suggest it is smart enough to prevent a replay from being shown (of a goal that initially generated no controversy whatsoever) is farcical. Yes, farcical. I just like saying it. Sorry.

 

The replay wasn't shown for a less interesting reason: the Stars just won the friggin' Stanley Cup on Buffalo ice. Why would it be shown? In hindsight, not showing it probably prevented a riot. It's the only blessing in disguise I can think of.

 

Say what you want about No Goal, but blaming Bettman is just downright ridiculous.

 

P.S. Didn't he control the puck by kicking it onto his stick?

By allowing arena management to keep control of the situation rather than have it turned over to the NHL/ESPN/whoever it was that sent the throng onto the ice.

 

It is not farcical to say that the league did not allow the replay to be shown because that is, in fact, what happened. You (should) know exactly why the guys running the scoreboard wanted to show the replay.

 

As to your PS, NO, under today's rulebook you may control a puck by propelling it with your stick, hand, or feet. But under the rulebook that was used in 1999, the ONLY way to control a puck was to play it with your STICK. AND the rulebook also SPECIFICALLY stated that "If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be 'in control of the puck'."

 

So, no, the play was not a legal goal. The league got it BLATENTLY wrong.

 

EDIT: AND they didn't follow their own procedure (big surprise there). The rulebook at that time clearly stated that it was the referee's decision to determine if it was a good goal or not, the video review judge was supposed to tell him only that Hull preceded the puck into the crease. It wasn't the VRJ's place to make the determination of whether it was a good goal or not. And the league admitted often that people upstairs decided it was a good goal. It was Gregson's decision, not Brian Lewis', nor Bettman's.

[SCSabresFan!]

I don't remember the team going "postal" on the ref after the goal.

 

 

Really?

 

I have it taped on NHL Network. Where do you want to mail the DVD? :lol:

[Stoner]

By allowing arena management to keep control of the situation rather than have it turned over to the NHL/ESPN/whoever it was that sent the throng onto the ice.

 

It is not farcical to say that the league did not allow the replay to be shown because that is, in fact, what happened. You (should) know exactly why the guys running the scoreboard wanted to show the replay.

 

As to your PS, NO, under today's rulebook you may control a puck by propelling it with your stick, hand, or feet. But under the rulebook that was used in 1999, the ONLY way to control a puck was to play it with your STICK. AND the rulebook also SPECIFICALLY stated that "If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be 'in control of the puck'."

 

So, no, the play was not a legal goal. The league got it BLATENTLY wrong.

 

EDIT: AND they didn't follow their own procedure (big surprise there). The rulebook at that time clearly stated that it was the referee's decision to determine if it was a good goal or not, the video review judge was supposed to tell him only that Hull preceded the puck into the crease. It wasn't the VRJ's place to make the determination of whether it was a good goal or not. And the league admitted often that people upstairs decided it was a good goal. It was Gregson's decision, not Brian Lewis', nor Bettman's.

 

OK, very good Taro. The instant the goal was scored, from whatever vantage point the commissioner had (probably not a good one), he should have within seconds gotten on the phone and ordered that "arena management keep control of the situation!" No one's mind works that quickly, let alone Gary Bettman's.

[Stoner]

Really?

 

I have it taped on NHL Network. Where do you want to mail the DVD? :lol:

 

I have a suggestion where you can put it. :thumbsup:

 

I'm not denying it. I just don't recall any hint of controversy about the goal until much later.

 

Fill us in. Who went postal and when?

[SCSabresFan!]

I have a suggestion where you can put it. :thumbsup:

 

I'm not denying it. I just don't recall any hint of controversy about the goal until much later.

 

Fill us in. Who went postal and when?

 

And I have a suggestion on where I can mail it... :w00t:

[SCSabresFan!]

Let's get back to the topic of Bettman that SDS started. Let's start with a great website.

 

Fire Bettman!

[Guest Sloth]

I have a suggestion where you can put it. :thumbsup:

 

I'm not denying it. I just don't recall any hint of controversy about the goal until much later.

 

Fill us in. Who went postal and when?

 

Maybe I have a bad memory, but I could swear they showed the replay on tv shortly after the goal was scored. :unsure:

[Taro T]

Really?

 

I have it taped on NHL Network. Where do you want to mail the DVD? :lol:

The Sabres didn't know the goal was no good until they saw a replay in their dressing room. Peca came back out when the Conn Smythe was presented, but nobody on the team raised any flags about the goal when it was scored. PA was actually right about ONE item regarding this travesty. Even Hasek, who was VERY persistant (and almost always correct) when he thought there was something wrong w/ a potential goal didn't argue the play because his eyes were about 4 inches off the ice when Hull was near / with that puck.

 

Nobody from the Sabres protested when it happened.

 

OK, very good Taro. The instant the goal was scored, from whatever vantage point the commissioner had (probably not a good one), he should have within seconds gotten on the phone and ordered that "arena management keep control of the situation!" No one's mind works that quickly, let alone Gary Bettman's.

Look, it should have been clear that arena management would have control until it was OFFICIAL that a team had won. That was not the case. Had HE bothered to make sure that his lieutenants had the contingencies covered, the people wouldn't have been out there. Was the fact the doors were opened but should not have been directly Gary's fault. No. Does the fact that NOTHING was done to correct the mistake fall back on him? Hell yes. Bettman should have taken control. Either he did and screwed up royally or he punted (which is sure as heck the way it looked by having Brian Lewis have to face the music and try to dance the jig that possession and control are the same thing). And they clearly aren't. Also, control only enters the picture due to the "phantom memo" that went around. The rule was clear. Even the explanations of the phantom memo were clear. The goal should not count.

 

I'd have gained a TON of respect for Bettman had the play actually been reviewed properly and all those people that came on the ice were kicked off the ice. That's what the NFL would have done.

 

It is blatently obvious that the only reason procedures were not followed was because the league didn't want to look foolish by bringing the people off the ice. Do you honestly believe that no one told Bettman about the controversy? If no one did, then Bettman should have been livid. He wasn't. Bettman knew and decided to be expedient rather than correct.

 

 

I notice you didn't refute the FACT that the play did not result in a legitimate goal.

[SCSabresFan!]

The Sabres didn't know the goal was no good until they saw a replay in their dressing room. Peca came back out when the Conn Smythe was presented, but nobody on the team raised any flags about the goal when it was scored. PA was actually right about ONE item regarding this travesty. Even Hasek, who was VERY persistant (and almost always correct) when he thought there was something wrong w/ a potential goal didn't argue the play because his eyes were about 4 inches off the ice when Hull was near / with that puck.

You are right Taro - the anger came in the lockerroom by the players, but Lindy was yelling from the bench

[Stoner]

You are right Taro - the anger came in the lockerroom by the players, but Lindy was yelling from the bench

 

You said the players went postal on the REF. Lindy was yelling long after the goal was scored.

 

Listen. It happened. There was no unbaking that bun.

[Swedesessed]

A guy getting booed during his climax can never be a good thing.

 

 

:lol:

[SCSabresFan!]

You said the players went postal on the REF. Lindy was yelling long after the goal was scored.

 

Listen. It happened. There was no unbaking that bun.

 

Unbaking a bun? Are you twelve?

[Stoner]

Unbaking a bun? Are you twelve?

 

Inches? How did you know?

 

I see. You get caught in a fib and decide to make a personal attack. Nice.

[SCSabresFan!]

Inches? How did you know?

 

I see. You get caught in a fib and decide to make a personal attack. Nice.

no. i can admit when i'm wrong. The last time someone asked to unbake my bun was junior high.

 

Back to the original point. Does Bettman still get a pass in your book?

[Stoner]

no. i can admit when i'm wrong. The last time someone asked to unbake my bun was junior high.

 

Back to the original point. Does Bettman still get a pass in your book?

 

Yes.

 

Would you have wanted Bettman to overturn the goal if the Sabres had scored it?

 

Would you have wanted Paul Tagliabue to rush onto the field and wipe out Don Beebe's touchdown in the Comeback Game?

 

Commissioners micromanaging the officiating of a game is a ludicrous concept.

 

Ooh, my Easy Bake Oven just chimed.

[Taro T]

Yes.

 

Would you have wanted Bettman to overturn the goal if the Sabres had scored it?

 

Would you have wanted Paul Tagliabue to rush onto the field and wipe out Don Beebe's touchdown in the Comeback Game?

 

Commissioners micromanaging the officiating of a game is a ludicrous concept.

 

Ooh, my Easy Bake Oven just chimed.

SOMEONE micromanaged that decision. Gregson (the person that SHOULD have made the decision, you know the REF) and Lewis (the person that claimed to make the decision, you know LEAGUE VP in charge of refs) both stated that the decision was made up in the booth where Lewis was. The VRJ rule was VERY clear that it was the ref's call to make. The VRJ didn't make decisions they provided "advise" to the refs.

 

The ref didn't make the call. The call WAS micromanaged. There was chaos (a couple hundred people on the ice isn't exactly orderly). I find it impossibly hard to believe that Bryan Lewis decided to take charge and left his boss in the dark. Either Bettman made the call (which was wrong and micromanaged) and then hid behind his deputy, or he was in the dark and SHOULD have stepped in and told Lewis to back off. Either way, the call was not his to make, but ensuring that things were done right WAS his responsibility. He failed miserably that day.

 

And for the record, I would have insisted that the call was wrong had Gregson (or even McCreary for that matter) made the call, but at least it would have been a legitimate blown call. That would not have been on Bettman. This one screams of half-assed micromanagement and trying not to look bad rather than getting things right.

 

I fully agree with you that commissioners micromanaging the officiating of a game is a ludicrous concept. League VP's doing it when their boss is in the building (the NHL's official position on how things happened) is light years beyond that.

[Corp000085]

IF the sabres had scored that goal, and it was waived off, i would have clearly understood the call. I may have been really really pissed, but I would have understood that call. Even the homejob throwup i can justify in my book. The ref went under the hood, saw the replay and received death threats from the home crowd, then made a call on a VERY close play and got it wrong.

 

I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get over no goal. Everything about that goal stinks of coverup. From hull snickering about it afterwards, to gretzky's fake PC to call it legit, to the league office making up some BS justification, right down to the jumbotron and bettman walking past ruff with his nose in the air on ice. The fact that the sabres were so vocal about it makes NO GOAL II even justifiable in my book. Leclair obviously shot it through the side of the net. Nobody questions that. That call was a tit-for-tat in response to the sabres making such a public display after the original no goal. Bettman could grow a beard, turn water into wine, make blind men see, and heal lepers, but he'll always be the devil in disguise to me for his handling of the 1999 stanley cup finals.

[Corp000085]

and sds, to your original post, i want bettman to stay on as long as he lives. I want him to be the commish to hand out the cup to the sabres, on home ice, so that the captain can grab the mic and yell "this is for 1999! NO GOAL!" Then take the cup, skate directly in front of bettman, hold it high, then take it back to his teammates. This is my dream.

 

"I won't slave for beggar's pay

Likewise gold and jewels.

But I would slave to learn the ways

to sink your ship of fools."

 

-Sc02NqsBgs

[Stoner]

IF the sabres had scored that goal, and it was waived off, i would have clearly understood the call. I may have been really really pissed, but I would have understood that call. Even the homejob throwup i can justify in my book. The ref went under the hood, saw the replay and received death threats from the home crowd, then made a call on a VERY close play and got it wrong.

 

I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get over no goal. Everything about that goal stinks of coverup. From hull snickering about it afterwards, to gretzky's fake PC to call it legit, to the league office making up some BS justification, right down to the jumbotron and bettman walking past ruff with his nose in the air on ice. The fact that the sabres were so vocal about it makes NO GOAL II even justifiable in my book. Leclair obviously shot it through the side of the net. Nobody questions that. That call was a tit-for-tat in response to the sabres making such a public display after the original no goal. Bettman could grow a beard, turn water into wine, make blind men see, and heal lepers, but he'll always be the devil in disguise to me for his handling of the 1999 stanley cup finals.

 

Paranoid much? No Goal II was another fluke situation. The puck goes through the side of the net, no one notices it -- again, not even the retentive semi-human Hasek -- and after play resumes, what are you gonna do? To ask the replay official to check the tape to make sure the puck didn't go through the side of the net is... wait for it... farcical.

 

Homerun Throwback? You mean the clear, without a doubt, lateral? Not even close.

 

I'm as big a Buffalo sports fan (well, probably not, but close) as anyone, but I refuse to be a homer. I guess that is the cause of so much tension on here. I just can't suspend reason.

[Stoner]

SOMEONE micromanaged that decision. Gregson (the person that SHOULD have made the decision, you know the REF) and Lewis (the person that claimed to make the decision, you know LEAGUE VP in charge of refs) both stated that the decision was made up in the booth where Lewis was. The VRJ rule was VERY clear that it was the ref's call to make. The VRJ didn't make decisions they provided "advise" to the refs.

 

The ref didn't make the call. The call WAS micromanaged. There was chaos (a couple hundred people on the ice isn't exactly orderly). I find it impossibly hard to believe that Bryan Lewis decided to take charge and left his boss in the dark. Either Bettman made the call (which was wrong and micromanaged) and then hid behind his deputy, or he was in the dark and SHOULD have stepped in and told Lewis to back off. Either way, the call was not his to make, but ensuring that things were done right WAS his responsibility. He failed miserably that day.

 

And for the record, I would have insisted that the call was wrong had Gregson (or even McCreary for that matter) made the call, but at least it would have been a legitimate blown call. That would not have been on Bettman. This one screams of half-assed micromanagement and trying not to look bad rather than getting things right.

 

I fully agree with you that commissioners micromanaging the officiating of a game is a ludicrous concept. League VP's doing it when their boss is in the building (the NHL's official position on how things happened) is light years beyond that.

 

Do you know where Bettman was when the goal was scored? I would have to assume he was in the vicinity of the runway waiting to make the presentation, if necessary. Was he reachable? Did he have a cell phone? Is it plausible in the short time between the scoring of the goal, the realization it might be controversial and the "official" decree that the goal was good for Lewis to have a conversation with Bettman? I know it works like that in the movies, where reality can be suspended, but not in real life.

 

Didn't Gregson call it a goal when it happened? He didn't waive it off, certainly. Did he speak with someone upstairs? If it was his call to make with advice from upstairs, why did he fold up his tent? Was he in on the conspiracy too?

[Taro T]

Paranoid much? No Goal II was another fluke situation. The puck goes through the side of the net, no one notices it -- again, not even the retentive semi-human Hasek -- and after play resumes, what are you gonna do? To ask the replay official to check the tape to make sure the puck didn't go through the side of the net is... wait for it... farcical.

 

Homerun Throwback? You mean the clear, without a doubt, lateral? Not even close.

 

I'm as big a Buffalo sports fan (well, probably not, but close) as anyone, but I refuse to be a homer. I guess that is the cause of so much tension on here. I just can't suspend reason.

Except Dom DID react. He was staring at the side of the net trying to figure out what had happened. He was looking there, but didn't see the hole. You want him to go ape when he doesn't understand how the puck got in? Now who isn't living in real life?

 

ALSO, and far more importantly, the VRJ was supposed to review all "goals" and the league CLAIMED that he did review it, 3 times was the quote from John Damico no less. After that screw-up, and it was a screw-up, the league changed a rule again due to a goal scored against the Sabres in the series the Sabres went out of the playoffs for the 3rd year in a row. And mr. farcical, the league did in fact make it so that the VRJ now reviews ALL potential goals to make sure they didn't go in the net (or out of it) through any manner other than how it should. The league trying to get something right, and doing the right thing as well, clearly is farcical.

 

The only farcical thing is that once again you have gotten me to reply to your standard Buffalo has never had a call go against it improperly bunk.

 

Do you know where Bettman was when the goal was scored? I would have to assume he was in the vicinity of the runway waiting to make the presentation, if necessary. Was he reachable? Did he have a cell phone? Is it plausible in the short time between the scoring of the goal, the realization it might be controversial and the "official" decree that the goal was good for Lewis to have a conversation with Bettman? I know it works like that in the movies, where reality can be suspended, but not in real life.

 

Didn't Gregson call it a goal when it happened? He didn't waive it off, certainly. Did he speak with someone upstairs? If it was his call to make with advice from upstairs, why did he fold up his tent? Was he in on the conspiracy too?

I have no flippin' clue where Bettman was. I know he wasn't out onto, nor near the ice, for several minutes, so I doubt he was waiting in the runway in a desperate hope to beat the throng onto the ice. I'd expect that he was upstairs somewhere watching the game.

 

In the NFL, when the teams have already gone to the locker rooms, but the game isn't officially over, they clear the field of non-players and bring the teams back out to finish the game. You're honestly trying to tell me that with both teams on the ice still that they couldn't have gotten the onlookers off the ice? Oh, silly me, they couldn't possibly do that because Bryan Lewis couldn't possibly speak with Gary what with Gary having almost definitely been sitting next to him when the goal happened and absolutely being in plain sight prior to the AWARDING ceremony.

 

Bettman, as SOON as the game went to OT, should have spoken with his top people and the top arena people to make sure they were prepared for ALL contingencies. That was HIS responsibility. They clearly weren't ready and that falls on him. They (the league) also saw having a video review of a SC winning goal to be their nightmare. That nightmare scenario was discussed anytime ESPN gleefully showed a replay of a goal that looked good except for the fact that the very toe of a skate was just almost imperceptibly inside the crease on the far side of the net prior to the puck entering the crease and subsequently the net. The league DID NOT WANT a video review, that is why the people upstairs said the goal was good without apparently reviewing anything. That was completely against the protocol.

 

Also, the reason Gregson didn't rule the play to not be a goal when it happened is that HE didn't see Hull's skate in the crease because he was dodging Holzinger. (The SOB couldn't check Hull but got enough of the ref to keep the ref from being able to see the play. @#%@#!%, definitely not a whole-zinger on that one.) McCreary couldn't tell if Hull was in the crease because of the angle he was at. But both refs saw the play well enough to have determined that IF Hull were in the crease (and it turns out that he was) that he had gone there of his own volition.

 

What exactly would you have Gregson do? He TRIED to follow the procedure. He and McCreary were waiting for the call down from upstairs while the mayhem was going on around them. Gregson was doing what he was supposed to do. The fact that his boss voided the procedure doesn't change that fact that the league's top brass royally screwed the pooch. The FACT that Bettman was supposed to be in charge and punted doesn't change the fact that every single thing the league did on that play was wrong, nor does it buy him a pass. The fact that Bettman was VERY aware there was a controversy on the goal prior to awarding anyone anything as Peca was chewing his ear for quite some time and Bettman did absolutely nothing about the controversy is still to this day the worst case of abdication of authority I have ever witnessed in the NHL.

[Stoner]

Except Dom DID react. He was staring at the side of the net trying to figure out what had happened. He was looking there, but didn't see the hole. You want him to go ape when he doesn't understand how the puck got in? Now who isn't living in real life?

 

ALSO, and far more importantly, the VRJ was supposed to review all "goals" and the league CLAIMED that he did review it, 3 times was the quote from John Damico no less. After that screw-up, and it was a screw-up, the league changed a rule again due to a goal scored against the Sabres in the series the Sabres went out of the playoffs for the 3rd year in a row. And mr. farcical, the league did in fact make it so that the VRJ now reviews ALL potential goals to make sure they didn't go in the net (or out of it) through any manner other than how it should. The league trying to get something right, and doing the right thing as well, clearly is farcical.

 

The only farcical thing is that once again you have gotten me to reply to your standard Buffalo has never had a call go against it improperly bunk.

 

 

I have no flippin' clue where Bettman was. I know he wasn't out onto, nor near the ice, for several minutes, so I doubt he was waiting in the runway in a desperate hope to beat the throng onto the ice. I'd expect that he was upstairs somewhere watching the game.

 

In the NFL, when the teams have already gone to the locker rooms, but the game isn't officially over, they clear the field of non-players and bring the teams back out to finish the game. You're honestly trying to tell me that with both teams on the ice still that they couldn't have gotten the onlookers off the ice? Oh, silly me, they couldn't possibly do that because Bryan Lewis couldn't possibly speak with Gary what with Gary having almost definitely been sitting next to him when the goal happened and absolutely being in plain sight prior to the AWARDING ceremony.

 

Bettman, as SOON as the game went to OT, should have spoken with his top people and the top arena people to make sure they were prepared for ALL contingencies. That was HIS responsibility. They clearly weren't ready and that falls on him. They (the league) also saw having a video review of a SC winning goal to be their nightmare. That nightmare scenario was discussed anytime ESPN gleefully showed a replay of a goal that looked good except for the fact that the very toe of a skate was just almost imperceptibly inside the crease on the far side of the net prior to the puck entering the crease and subsequently the net. The league DID NOT WANT a video review, that is why the people upstairs said the goal was good without apparently reviewing anything. That was completely against the protocol.

 

Also, the reason Gregson didn't rule the play to not be a goal when it happened is that HE didn't see Hull's skate in the crease because he was dodging Holzinger. (The SOB couldn't check Hull but got enough of the ref to keep the ref from being able to see the play. @#%@#!%, definitely not a whole-zinger on that one.) McCreary couldn't tell if Hull was in the crease because of the angle he was at. But both refs saw the play well enough to have determined that IF Hull were in the crease (and it turns out that he was) that he had gone there of his own volition.

 

What exactly would you have Gregson do? He TRIED to follow the procedure. He and McCreary were waiting for the call down from upstairs while the mayhem was going on around them. Gregson was doing what he was supposed to do. The fact that his boss voided the procedure doesn't change that fact that the league's top brass royally screwed the pooch. The FACT that Bettman was supposed to be in charge and punted doesn't change the fact that every single thing the league did on that play was wrong, nor does it buy him a pass. The fact that Bettman was VERY aware there was a controversy on the goal prior to awarding anyone anything as Peca was chewing his ear for quite some time and Bettman did absolutely nothing about the controversy is still to this day the worst case of abdication of authority I have ever witnessed in the NHL.

 

Buffalo has never had a call go against it improperly? I said that? OK, sure.

 

This is tiresome. I really wish someone would write an objective account of what happened that night. Next year being the 10th anniversary, the time would be ripe. Perhaps enough time has passed that some folks involved behind the scenes, maybe now out of the employ of the league, would talk.

 

This tall tale gets better with each passing year.

 

No Goal II was just a bizarre fluke. I hold no one accountable, certainly not Dom for not figuring out what happened. The video official watching the play live sees the puck go into the net -- as does everyone else. He has no reason to check the replay to make sure the puck didn't go through the side of the net. Classic case of armchair officiating to say he should have. It certainly didn't cost the Sabres the series. They were worn out from their Stanley Cup hangover.

 

(Actually, the 99-00 season has a lot in common with the past year. The Sabres were fried from advancing far into the playoffs the previous two seasons and had nothing left in the tank. With an offseason to recharge, 00-01 was a very good season that would have put the Sabres back in the ECF had it not been for Lemieux's heaven-sent goal. I'm sure Taro believes Bettman was suspended over that end of the ice and dropped the puck in the Sabres' crease.)