How can Bettman remain as commissioner...?

[Taro T]

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.)

No, you have never overly stated "Buffalo has never had a call go against it improperly". OTTOMH though, I cannot think of a call that went against Buffalo that you stated was improperly called. Actually, you tend to be quite "vocal" (had a long day, and I'm not sure right now what would the right word be for a message board, typy maybe?) on the more controversial calls in support of the call made at the time. (HRTF, NGI, NG the sequel, Neil-Drury for certain)

 

There actually were several objective accounts that came out at the time; almost all of the information I have posted through the years in our annual rehashing of this has come from those sources, a small portion is my 1st hand account having been in the "cheap" seats when this all went down (Bettman not being at ice level immediately, knowing how Gregson acted on the ice, etc), and conversations with people directly involved (Jumbotron). I would be very surprised if you ever get a "tell all" of that event but would like to read/hear the account.

 

Please explain which portions of what I have written have been a "tall tale". The rules I have quoted were not imaginary, nor was the accounting of what occurred on the ice. Actually, I have two other questions for you regarding this, you are quite clearly of the opinion that Bettman has gotten a bum rap in all this. What did he do RIGHT in this situation? What did the people working for him (upstairs specifically, I've already stated what Gregson and McCreary did right IMHO)?

 

Also, I have never stated that the Leclair goal wasn't a fluke. I don't believe that the league set out to hose the Sabres on that one, it just worked out that way when the VRJ half-assed his way through his job. I also don't know that the Sabres would have beaten the Phlyers in that series without that goal, but that was the only goal Filly scored on Dom that night until late in the 3rd. If that goal doesn't count, maybe Dom pitches the shutout and he gets as far into their heads as he was in '98 and the Sabres pull it out. Maybe he doesn't (or even maybe he does) and the team is still so spent that they lose in 5 or 6. The team was definitely running on fumes after that game.

 

My contention on the Leclair goal was that 1 Dom did notice the puck shouldn't have been in the net behind him which is contrary to what you stated and 2 the league itself didn't / doesn't find it farcical to get goals called correctly. It's kind of farcical that you do find that farcical.

 

Heck, I have never stated that the league set out to screw the Sabres on the Hull play. It's just that's the way it worked, and Bettman was in a position to keep them from getting screwed (due to he or his own people not following their own rules and procedures) and did nothing to prevent it. So that is the way it worked.

 

And no, Bettman had nothing to do with the Lemieux goal nor Gilmour tanking it. Although that year the SC was theirs for the taking if they'd have just gotten something for Peca (my 2nd choice) or Peca that year. They also might not have had Dom decide they weren't serious about winning had they inked him.

[Stoner]

No, you have never overly stated "Buffalo has never had a call go against it improperly". OTTOMH though, I cannot think of a call that went against Buffalo that you stated was improperly called. Actually, you tend to be quite "vocal" (had a long day, and I'm not sure right now what would the right word be for a message board, typy maybe?) on the more controversial calls in support of the call made at the time. (HRTF, NGI, NG the sequel, Neil-Drury for certain)

 

Are you charged per word by your ISP? :) Actually, it's fun trying to figure out your shorthand.

 

Music City Miracle: When it happened, I was certain the ball went forward. Upon closer review, there's no doubt in my mind the ball very likely went a little backwards -- certainly not forward. Ignorance of the rule was a problem, as many fans thought the position of the feet of the passer and receiver was the determining factor. A classic optical illusion. Big question: does being a fan require you suspend reality?

 

No Goal I: I don't think anyone will ever know if the correct call was made, because it's so tied up in semantics. Few critics want to mention how different this play was from the vast majority of crease situations during the season. This didn't involve someone other than the scorer being in the crease when a goal was scored. This involved the scorer. After a goal was disallowed in St. Louis during the regular season when the scorer in possession of the puck entered the crease before the puck, on a wraparound play IMMSMC, the infamous memo was drafted. It was akin to golf, which has the Rules of Golf (the letter of the rules) and Decisions on the Rules of Golf (the spirit of them as they are interpreted in often strange and previously unthought of situations, like an chunk of frozen urine dropped from a jetliner above hitting Tiger Woods in the middle of his backswing). I have no problem with a goal being scored by a player in possession of the puck, even if the scorer's skate was in the crease. I have no problem with Hull's goal, even if it was technically illegal, which I doubt. Even if it was, I did not want to see the Cup taken from a team on a call like that. Nor would I want to see the Sabres benefit from such a call and win the Cup. Let it be Dallas' asterisk.

 

No Goal II: See above.

 

Neil-Drury: Again, do I have to tow the party line because I'm a Sabre fan? Drury set himself up for the hit, Neil's hit came only about a second after Drury shot the puck, Neil wasn't headhunting. Seemed like a good hit to me. No penalty, no suspension. If a Sabre delivers the hit, you cheer it and defend it. I can't be a homer, sorry. I applaud Drury for taking it like a man and still mock Golisano's whining letter to the league that read like a Squirt hockey mother's complaint. IMHO, it was the defining moment of the season for both teams. The Senators showed they were willing to get themselves dirty (and others bloody) to win a game, something that Sabres team never demonstrated, their many fetid responses to situations notwithstanding. Golisano's letter defined the Sabres as a team that wasn't good enough to win it all, unless the league changed the rules to help them, or something.

 

Please explain which portions of what I have written have been a "tall tale". The rules I have quoted were not imaginary, nor was the accounting of what occurred on the ice.

 

Case in point: You said you have no doubt Bettman was sitting next to Lewis and/or had a conversation with him about the situation. This is pure speculation. Quite the tall tale. An intriguing yarn.

 

Actually, I have two other questions for you regarding this, you are quite clearly of the opinion that Bettman has gotten a bum rap in all this. What did he do RIGHT in this situation? What did the people working for him (upstairs specifically, I've already stated what Gregson and McCreary did right IMHO)?

I think we have a different opinion on the role of a commissioner during an event. I believe commissioners delegate management of an event. You surely know the perception problem the league would have if TV cameras caught a glimpse of Bettman sitting in the replay booth with a headset on. The league would be roasted as one of the garage variety yet again. I hope Bettman did nothing to influence the call, although I really don't know, and neither do you.

 

I also have no idea what happened "upstairs" or by whom, so I can't comment.

 

Also, I have never stated that the Leclair goal wasn't a fluke. I don't believe that the league set out to hose the Sabres on that one, it just worked out that way when the VRJ half-assed his way through his job.

 

Half-assed. See, again this is where we part ways. Human systems are not perfect. We are looking in hindsight and saying he should have checked for it. It's a ridiculous standard to hold someone to. After the goal, not ridiculous... it should have been confirmed on every goal since. Box cutters were allowed on planes on 9-11.

 

My contention on the Leclair goal was that 1 Dom did notice the puck shouldn't have been in the net behind him which is contrary to what you stated...

 

But his demonstration was not enough, not nearly enough, for anyone to take notice and ask the replay official. Dixon Ward later said he saw the puck go through the net and jumped up and down on the bench. Another tall tale. But I loved Dixon, as much as one man can love another, legally in most of the lower 48.

 

...and 2 the league itself didn't / doesn't find it farcical to get goals called correctly. It's kind of farcical that you do find that farcical.

 

You're getting the hang of this. IOICFOWTHYASHTT

[Taro T]

Are you charged per word by your ISP? :) Actually, it's fun trying to figure out your shorthand.

 

Music City Miracle: When it happened, I was certain the ball went forward. Upon closer review, there's no doubt in my mind the ball very likely went a little backwards -- certainly not forward. Ignorance of the rule was a problem, as many fans thought the position of the feet of the passer and receiver was the determining factor. A classic optical illusion. Big question: does being a fan require you suspend reality?

This one would be/ should be easy enough to figure out. Wasn't there a blimp at the game? If so, this one should be extremely cut and dried. And we are of opposing opinions about the optical illusion; I think it is the camera angle that makes it look as close as it is. There is no doubt in my mind that the ball went a little forwards, thus Home Run Throw Forward. Even if there wasn't a blimp angle of the play, they know exactly where the cameras were on the play and exactly how tall players are and probably their wing spans as well. It'd be pretty easy to use trig and determine whether it was forward or backwards.

No Goal I: I don't think anyone will ever know if the correct call was made, because it's so tied up in semantics. Few critics want to mention how different this play was from the vast majority of crease situations during the season. This didn't involve someone other than the scorer being in the crease when a goal was scored. This involved the scorer. After a goal was disallowed in St. Louis during the regular season when the scorer in possession of the puck entered the crease before the puck, on a wraparound play IMMSMC, the infamous memo was drafted. It was akin to golf, which has the Rules of Golf (the letter of the rules) and Decisions on the Rules of Golf (the spirit of them as they are interpreted in often strange and previously unthought of situations, like an chunk of frozen urine dropped from a jetliner above hitting Tiger Woods in the middle of his backswing). I have no problem with a goal being scored by a player in possession of the puck, even if the scorer's skate was in the crease. I have no problem with Hull's goal, even if it was technically illegal, which I doubt. Even if it was, I did not want to see the Cup taken from a team on a call like that. Nor would I want to see the Sabres benefit from such a call and win the Cup. Let it be Dallas' asterisk.

Absolutely it comes down to semantics, but using the NHL's semantics, the play resulted in an illegal goal. The words involved have very clear meanings (unlike the word 'is' apparently). The league attempted to make it appear that they don't have clear meanings to cover their mistake. That is all it is, and it is a lousy coverup. At least when Frazier screwed the Sabres in '98 the league admitted that he screwed them.

 

Also, it was very close to being a legal goal; had Hull used his stick to play the puck rather than his foot he would have had control and there would have only been controversy as to why the phantom memo wasn't made public prior to the game. As it was, he did not have control, and the rule and apparently the memo clarification to it was quite clear. With control the player with possession of the puck could enter the crease prior to the puck; without it he couldn't.

 

I also agree that it was a horribly ridiculous rule and the league was correct in getting rid of it. However, it was the rule at the time and it had been followed to the letter until that particular play. Heck, in a blowout loss to the Sabres, the Isles had a goal taken away when an Isle and Dom raced to the puck, the player leaped to avoid Dom and his momentum carried him against the goal, the puck went loose and a 2nd Gorton's Fisherman fired the loose puck into the empty (except for the 1st Isle) net. The goal was disallowed because the other player was standing in the crease. Why would the NHL in it's infinite wisdom decide to stop enforcing the rule at the most critical moment of all? That is truly mindboggling, and falls back on Bettman.

 

But what I do not agree with, and will not agree with, is that it doesn't matter whether the goal was legal or not. Especially when the league went out of its way to get the call wrong by ignoring its own rules and procedures.

No Goal II: See above.

 

Neil-Drury: Again, do I have to tow the party line because I'm a Sabre fan? Drury set himself up for the hit, Neil's hit came only about a second after Drury shot the puck, Neil wasn't headhunting. Seemed like a good hit to me. No penalty, no suspension. If a Sabre delivers the hit, you cheer it and defend it. I can't be a homer, sorry. I applaud Drury for taking it like a man and still mock Golisano's whining letter to the league that read like a Squirt hockey mother's complaint. IMHO, it was the defining moment of the season for both teams. The Senators showed they were willing to get themselves dirty (and others bloody) to win a game, something that Sabres team never demonstrated, their many fetid responses to situations notwithstanding. Golisano's letter defined the Sabres as a team that wasn't good enough to win it all, unless the league changed the rules to help them, or something.

No, you are clearly entitled to your opinion. I am merely pointing out that here is another instance where your opinion is that the correct call was made on a controversial play that the Sabres were on the wrong side of, again.

Case in point: You said you have no doubt Bettman was sitting next to Lewis and/or had a conversation with him about the situation. This is pure speculation. Quite the tall tale. An intriguing yarn.

No, I explicitly stated that I don't know where he was, but that I'd expect that he was with Lewis. Whether he was with him or not is immaterial. Bettman KNEW of the controversy before any hardware was handed out. He did nothing to make certain the correct call was made. Please tell me which portion of the play and the rules interpretation was a "tall tale".

I think we have a different opinion on the role of a commissioner during an event. I believe commissioners delegate management of an event. You surely know the perception problem the league would have if TV cameras caught a glimpse of Bettman sitting in the replay booth with a headset on. The league would be roasted as one of the garage variety yet again. I hope Bettman did nothing to influence the call, although I really don't know, and neither do you.

Where / when did I ever state that Bettman should have been the one making the initial call? I have been very clear in my contention that it was Gregson's call to make and not the call of someone upstairs. However, once the people upstairs screwed the pooch, it was Bettman's opportunity to rise to the occassion and fix something that was badly broken. He didn't. And, in this portion of the discussion, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that Bettman wasn't involved in calling the play a goal. That is a big assumption. If he was involved, this whole thing is even more d*mning than I've believed to this point.

 

Bettman had ample opportunity to make certain his people were up to the task when the game went to OT. They clearly weren't up to task. When the people upstairs and at the gates screwed up, Bettman could have taken charge and he didn't.

I also have no idea what happened "upstairs" or by whom, so I can't comment.

So, you don't know that any of them did anything right, Bettman included, you just know they didn't do anything wrong and that Bettman gets a bum rap. :blink:

Half-assed. See, again this is where we part ways. Human systems are not perfect. We are looking in hindsight and saying he should have checked for it. It's a ridiculous standard to hold someone to. After the goal, not ridiculous... it should have been confirmed on every goal since. Box cutters were allowed on planes on 9-11.

I would have been saying he should check for it prior to that game occurring. Heck, what is the point of having a replay system if you don't use it. That was his job. I would certainly hope that he took it seriously, especially in the SC playoffs. Goals going in (and out of) the net through the net rather than the goalmouth was one of the main points used to sell replay. It is rather farcical that replay be used in the manner it was intended. <_<

But his demonstration was not enough, not nearly enough, for anyone to take notice and ask the replay official. Dixon Ward later said he saw the puck go through the net and jumped up and down on the bench. Another tall tale. But I loved Dixon, as much as one man can love another, legally in most of the lower 48.

The system was set up that the replay official was supposed to do his job without being asked. Clearly Hasek's demonstration wasn't enough, what was he supposed to do, pitch a hissy fit when he is wondering if he just simply misplayed the play that significantly. It doesn't work that way in the real world. And you are now trying to get into a semantics debate as you stated he did nothing, implying that he thought the goal was good. That was not the case.

 

You're getting the hang of this. IOICFOWTHYASHTT

I don't even want to hazard a guess as to what that stands for. ;)

[That Aud Smell]

With Taro and PA having at it at this level of discourse, I feel good about the quality and viability of SS, both now and in the immediate future.

 

... Now if I could only get to feeling that way about the Sabres themselves.

[Bmwolf21]

With Taro and PA having at it at this level of discourse, I feel good about the quality and viability of SS, both now and in the immediate future.

 

... Now if I could only get to feeling that way about the Sabres themselves.

If ever a thread deserved a tub of popcorn and movie theater-seating, it's this one. Good stuff.

[shrader]

If ever a thread deserved a tub of popcorn and movie theater-seating, it's this one. Good stuff.

 

If only I could find the time to read all of it. For now I'll have to settle with reading one post and then coming back for the next a couple hours later.

[SwampD]

If ever a thread deserved a tub of popcorn and movie theater-seating, it's this one. Good stuff.

Must be intermission.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Bmwolf21]

Must be intermission.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:worthy:

[Stoner]

Taro, you ignorant slut.

[Taro T]

PA, you pompous ass.

[inkman]

Taro, you ignorant slut.

PA, you pompous ass.

This is more my reading level.

[SCSabresFan!]

I go out of town for a couple of days and a thesis on hockey was written. We all know that Bettman was over at PA's house during the Stanley Cup eating a snack from his easy bake oven.

[SCSabresFan!]

One last thing I'd like to mention on this subject. During the 99 ECF game 5 in Toronto, two goals were overturned by video replay, including a skate in the crease goal Matt Sundin scored. I wish the league thought enough of the Stanley Cup finals to video review every goal.

[Guest Sloth]

One last thing I'd like to mention on this subject. During the 99 ECF game 5 in Toronto, two goals were overturned by video replay, including a skate in the crease goal Matt Sundin scored. I wish the league thought enough of the Stanley Cup finals to video review every goal.

 

Shiit happens. We all know that a certain goal was allowed when it shouldn't have been. People are complaining WAY TOO much about the commish. Just let the guys play for crying out loud! Shiit happens, get used to it!

[Stoner]

Taro, get your ass over here! Now!

 

Goddamnit, I want to win ONE argument about "blown" calls and Buffalo sports before I die.

 

I very much soft-pedaled (peddled?) my position on Music City Miracle in a previous post, because, honestly, I had forgotten how obvious the call was when the play is viewed smack dab down (or almost smack dab down), the yard line.

 

Taro, would you mind viewing the replay on YouTube and offering your opinion on what yard line the ball is over when it's released, and caught?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwJNFrzML0...;watch_response

[SCSabresFan!]

Shiit happens. We all know that a certain goal was allowed when it shouldn't have been. People are complaining WAY TOO much about the commish. Just let the guys play for crying out loud! Shiit happens, get used to it!

 

Yeah but why does shiiit happen to our Buffalo teams more than others?

[Stoner]

Taro, White Courtesy Post, Taro... please call your answering service.

[nfreeman]

This is somewhat related to this topic: David Stern was booed a bit the other night as he was presenting the NBA championship trophy to the Celtics.

[Bmwolf21]

This is somewhat related to this topic: David Stern was booed a bit the other night as he was presenting the NBA championship trophy to the Celtics.

With two huge scandals going on it's not the least bit surprising that he'd get booed.

[Taro T]

Taro, White Courtesy Post, Taro... please call your answering service.

As soon as you respond to my questions / comments about the Hull debacle I will gladly reply to your inquiry about HRTF. I assume your question is referring to the video of the play, not the video of the computer game that the league was playing with, correct?

 

Let's try to keep this to one debate at a time YIS. ;)

[Stoner]

As soon as you respond to my questions / comments about the Hull debacle I will gladly reply to your inquiry about HRTF. I assume your question is referring to the video of the play, not the video of the computer game that the league was playing with, correct?

 

Let's try to keep this to one debate at a time YIS. ;)

 

Remind me never to play Dodge Ball with you. BTW, I'm PA SabreFan.

 

Yes, the video of the play.