Corp000085 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Stu Barnes ties game 6 at 1 on a sweet goal. oh yeah, one more thing... NO GOAL!!!!!
wonderbread Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 ... Personally I would have went with a nice smooth Brie, or a Chesire even a Gouda. All would go well with that wine.
Stoner Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Personally I would have went with a nice smooth Brie, or a Chesire even a Gouda. All would go well with that wine. What goes well with a nice block of Velveeta?
elcrusho Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Really??? Still A Decade later.... Give it up....
SwampD Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Really??? Yes...really. Still Yes...still. A Decade later.... Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Give it up.... Never.
wonderbread Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 What goes well with a nice block of Velveeta? Either a ice cold can of PBR or an Old Mil.
Corp000085 Posted June 19, 2009 Author Report Posted June 19, 2009 Really???Still A Decade later.... Give it up.... Nope. I'll never give that up. We were absolutely robbed, and i'm still angry about it. I'll never give that up
JujuFish Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Nope. I'll never give that up. We were absolutely robbed, and i'm still angry about it. I'll never give that up Weren't we screwed like three straight years in the playoffs, each time leading to a rule change? (looks for Dave)
Stoner Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Weren't we screwed like three straight years in the playoffs, each time leading to a rule change? (looks for Dave) Well of course 2000 was No Goal II. Totally freakish incident where not even Dom or the Sabres raised a ruckus. I hold the replay officials blameless for failing to notice a puck went through the side of the net. Besides, it had nothing to do with the outcome of the series, really. The Sabres were operating on fumes after making the finals and putting on a big push to make the playoffs on the last day of the regular season. Taro's going to bring up Kerry Fraser in the ECF in 98. Also, I think on Washington's overtime winner in Game 2, the Caps should have been called for icing. Dems the breaks. Blaming the ump is the loser's lament. Ruff won Game 1 on the road against Washington and Dallas and couldn't win the series (same against Carolina in '06). Dom turning to Swiss Cheese against Washington didn't help, and the Sabres' offensive fecklessness against Dallas. There are plenty of reasons those teams couldn't win it all. It had nothing, or very little, to do with officiating.
LabattBlue Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 This goal is part of the reason I hate Bettman and his cronies so much. I don't care what they said then or what they say now. They never reviewed the goal and once people started pouring on the ice, they just gave up. ! :angry:
Stoner Posted June 19, 2009 Report Posted June 19, 2009 Nope. I'll never give that up. We were absolutely robbed, and i'm still angry about it. I'll never give that up Just for the fun of it, if there really was a memo that tweaked the crease rule mid season to say if a player had control and possession of the puck, his skate could be in the crease while he scored... would you say Hull had possession and control of that puck?
SwampD Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 Just for the fun of it, if there really was a memo that tweaked the crease rule mid season to say if a player had control and possession of the puck, his skate could be in the crease while he scored... would you say Hull had possession and control of that puck? I'm trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is. Is it to point out that Blue would have found something to complain out no matter what happened,... or that you agree that we were screwed?... because we did. And in 2000, I believe that we were tied in the series and tied in that game, when Dom got beat in the 6 hole. I feel that goal played a bigger part in that series than people think. Yes, it gave them a reason to give up, but that doesn't mean they would have had it not happened. There is no reason why once the refs found out it was not a goal, that they didn't just take it off the scoreboard and put the time back on the clock.
Stoner Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 I'm trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is. Is it to point out that Blue would have found something to complain out no matter what happened,... or that you agree that we were screwed?... because we did. And in 2000, I believe that we were tied in the series and tied in that game, when Dom got beat in the 6 hole. I feel that goal played a bigger part in that series than people think. Yes, it gave them a reason to give up, but that doesn't mean they would have had it not happened. There is no reason why once the refs found out it was not a goal, that they didn't just take it off the scoreboard and put the time back on the clock. It was Game 2. The Flyers won Game 1. Here's the pertinent text of the infamous memo of March 25, 1999: ''An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. 'Result: Goal is allowed.'" No Goal People would be better off arguing that you can't change a rule late in the regular season.
Corp000085 Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Posted June 20, 2009 Just for the fun of it, if there really was a memo that tweaked the crease rule mid season to say if a player had control and possession of the puck, his skate could be in the crease while he scored... would you say Hull had possession and control of that puck? I don't really want to get into this argument, so i'll leave it at this: There was a very quick, helter skelter play and the puck was shot in by a guy whose foot was clearly in the crease. I'm not going to suffer and watch it again, so i'll call it like i called it that night. no goal. Everything else that happened was the NHL covering for an obvious error on their part. What I will tell you for a fact, I'd rather be a sabres fan, losing cause we got jobbed than to be a dallas fan and to have won in that fashion. Sorta like winning the title off of a chair shot. Yeah, they won, but it's pretty hollow if you ask me.
Foligno's Nose Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 Well of course 2000 was No Goal II. Totally freakish incident where not even Dom or the Sabres raised a ruckus. I recall Darcy going ballistic. He was yelling at a couple NHL off-ice officials and pointing at a TV monitor up in the press-box area. It was shown on the broadcast. LeClair scored the 'II' goal, right???
Foligno's Nose Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 And ten years ago... I dozed off and awoke to 'Hockey Hotline' with Brian Blessing and Robitaille. I did not know what had happened and then they cut back to the ice...the Stars were celebrating, and Ruff had come back out onto the bench to yell and protest hull's goal. A great ride for the team...albeit with a BS ending. It changed the video review aspect of the game forever. For the better. It is funny that I do not feel the burn that I still feel for the 06' loss to Carolina in the semis. That one hurts.
Stoner Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 I recall Darcy going ballistic. He was yelling at a couple NHL off-ice officials and pointing at a TV monitor up in the press-box area.It was shown on the broadcast. LeClair scored the 'II' goal, right??? Immediately after the "goal," I meant. Darcy was reacting after play had resumed and the "money shot" angle had been discovered. it was too late.
shrader Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 No Goal People would be better off arguing that you can't change a rule late in the regular season. You mean like every single year in the playoffs?
SwampD Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 It was Game 2. The Flyers won Game 1. Here's the pertinent text of the infamous memo of March 25, 1999: ''An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. 'Result: Goal is allowed.'" No Goal People would be better off arguing that you can't change a rule late in the regular season. I think it's funny that even you call that memo infamous. Because there is no way that memo came out on March 25, 1999. I'll bet anything that it came out on June 20, 1999 when the NHL realized that a goal, one that in the 1000+ games earlier that season would have been overturned wasn't. They screwed up and had to cover their . I love this thread. Ten years and people still get mad. Although I believe we got jobbed, I'm still more angry that Hasek let in that first soft goal that squeezed in between his right pad and the pipe. From behind the goal line no less.
Stoner Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 I think it's funny that even you call that memo infamous. Because there is no way that memo came out on March 25, 1999. I'll bet anything that it came out on June 20, 1999 when the NHL realized that a goal, one that in the 1000+ games earlier that season would have been overturned wasn't. They screwed up and had to cover their . I love this thread. Ten years and people still get mad. Although I believe we got jobbed, I'm still more angry that Hasek let in that first soft goal that squeezed in between his right pad and the pipe. From behind the goal line no less. Yes, Hasek was outplayed by Belfour fo sho. I watched Kaspairaitis' goal in Game 7 again last night, and it gets more suspicious as time goes on. If you want to believe in conspiracies regarding the memo, I can't change your mind. All Darcy had to say was, "We didn't get a memo." The truth is that he and every other GM got it from Colin Campbell on that date. The memo followed a controversial situation in St. Louis I believe where a player scored on a wraparound and had his skate in the crease. The league didn't want to wipe out goals in situations like that and realized the rule needed tweaking.
SwampD Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 Yes, Hasek was outplayed by Belfour fo sho. I watched Kaspairaitis' goal in Game 7 again last night, and it gets more suspicious as time goes on. If you want to believe in conspiracies regarding the memo, I can't change your mind. All Darcy had to say was, "We didn't get a memo." The truth is that he and every other GM got it from Colin Campbell on that date. The memo followed a controversial situation in St. Louis I believe where a player scored on a wraparound and had his skate in the crease. The league didn't want to wipe out goals in situations like that and realized the rule needed tweaking. I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in people making mistakes, and then modifying(fabricating?) the truth because their egos won't allow them to admit having made those mistakes.
Stoner Posted June 20, 2009 Report Posted June 20, 2009 I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in people making mistakes, and then modifying(fabricating?) the truth because their egos won't allow them to admit having made those mistakes. Yes. Thank God for the edit button.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.