"No goal," the saga continues...

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

'"Hull's foot was in the crease as he fired a rebound past Buffalo's Dominik Hasek in triple overtime of Game 6. Many thought that was a no-no, unaware the league had circulated a private memo earlier that season clarifying a skate could be in the crease if the player was in control of the puck.

 

As a result, the goal stood. Some fans of the Sabres still believe it shouldn't have.

 

"We all knew that they had changed the rule," Hull said Thursday on a conference call. "But obviously the NHL decided they weren't going to tell anybody but the teams ... They changed the rule to say if you have control in the crease, you can score the goal, and that's exactly what it was.

 

 

"But nobody knows that. You can tell people that a million times and they just will not listen."'

 

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/News/2009/11/05/11650151-cp.html

 

 

This is the first time I'm hearing about this. Is this "memo" story new? Has it been confirmed?

[elcrusho]

LET

 

 

 

 

IT

 

 

 

 

GO

[That Aud Smell]

This is the first time I'm hearing about this. Is this "memo" story new? Has it been confirmed?

I have heard this story about a rule interpretation memo in the past -- not saying I heard it anytime soon after Game 6 in 1999 -- but I have heard it before.

 

EDIT: Which is to say, I've always thought that the secret memo story was a load of bull. Whither the memo? I've never seen a copy.

[Stoner]

I have heard this story about a rule interpretation memo in the past -- not saying I heard it anytime soon after Game 6 in 1999 -- but I have heard it before.

 

EDIT: Which is to say, I've always thought that the secret memo story was a load of bull. Whither the memo? I've never seen a copy.

 

Word of the memo came out immediately after Game 6. Although we've never seen a copy of it, Darcy never came out and said the team didn't receive it, which you'd think would be the appropriate thing to say if the memo story was indeed a load of bull.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

I have heard this story about a rule interpretation memo in the past -- not saying I heard it anytime soon after Game 6 in 1999 -- but I have heard it before.

 

EDIT: Which is to say, I've always thought that the secret memo story was a load of bull. Whither the memo? I've never seen a copy.

 

I thought it smelled a little funky when I read it. Has anyone ever gone back to see if they were enforcing this once the memo came out?

 

I apologize for drudging up the past, but its really the Canadian Press's fault for publishing this article. :)

[RayFinkle]

LET

 

 

 

 

IT

 

 

 

 

GO

Never. That is the beauty of a Buffalo sports fan. We may not have much, but we are outspoken and jadded. Brett Hull has commented on numerous occasions how badly the Buffalo sports fans continue to bust his balls to this day. He HATES Buffalo and I love it.

[Stoner]

I thought it smelled a little funky when I read it. Has anyone ever gone back to see if they were enforcing this once the memo came out?

 

I apologize for drudging up the past, but its really the Canadian Press's fault for publishing this article. :)

 

Such a strange scenario -- maybe it never happened between the release of the memo and Hull's goal. I recall that the memo was written after a goal was disallowed when a player came out from behind the net in possession and control of the puck and scored with his skate in the crease. I want to say it happened in St. Louis in February or March, but I've never been able to find any reporting on the game in question. The league did not want such goals disallowed. What the No Goal Fanatics will never admit is that the crease rule almost always was applied to situations where someone else shot the puck and the scorer was in the crease before the puck got there. Entirely different scenario than being in control and possession of the puck outside the crease, then entering the crease before scoring, which is exactly what happened on Hull's goal.

[LabattBlue]

...and here I thought I was crossing the line in terms of rehashing "old" issues by bringing up Vanek's offer sheet! :lol:

[Sabre Dance]

Just to add insult to injury, the Sabres had a goal disallowed earlier that season in a game against the Flyers; the circumstances were almost exactly the same as the Hull goal (but on the other side of the net). I often wondered if someone in the Sabres' organization complained about that to the league and that was the genesis of the (phantom) memo. Now THAT would be luck, Buffalo-style!

[wjag]

I'd feel better about it, if in fact there was truth here..

 

BUT no one in the Sabres organization reacted like it was a good goal. I call BS..

[Stoner]

I'd feel better about it, if in fact there was truth here..

 

BUT no one in the Sabres organization reacted like it was a good goal. I call BS..

 

You're right. Ignorance of the rules and/or covering your ass after a big loss would never enter into the picture.

 

Again, why didn't Darcy come out and say, "What memo? We didn't get any memo."?

[shrader]

Again, why didn't Darcy come out and say, "What memo? We didn't get any memo."?

 

Threats from the league?

 

And can we rename this thread to "dragged up from the depths yet again..."

[Taro T]

Such a strange scenario -- maybe it never happened between the release of the memo and Hull's goal. I recall that the memo was written after a goal was disallowed when a player came out from behind the net in possession and control of the puck and scored with his skate in the crease. I want to say it happened in St. Louis in February or March, but I've never been able to find any reporting on the game in question. The league did not want such goals disallowed. What the No Goal Fanatics will never admit is that the crease rule almost always was applied to situations where someone else shot the puck and the scorer was in the crease before the puck got there. Entirely different scenario than being in control and possession of the puck outside the crease, then entering the crease before scoring, which is exactly what happened on Hull's goal.

Oh old and wise and grumpy one, please explain to me how Hull maintained CONTROL of the puck AFTER he took the initial shot? (And remember, the joystick doesn't work the same in real life as it does on NHL '99.)

[korab rules]

Oh old and wise and grumpy one, please explain to me how Hull maintained CONTROL of the puck AFTER he took the initial shot? (And remember, the joystick doesn't work the same in real life as it does on NHL '99.)

 

 

He didn't have control of the puck as he entered the crease! Here is a

to the video. As it shows, his foot is in the crease before the save by Hasek, the rebound pops out into Hull's skates, his foot goes back into the crease, THEN he gathers up the rebound with a skate in the crease and puts the puck in the net.

 

It is not a goal. It was never a goal, and will never be a goal. Hull will spend the rest of his life defending it, because he describes that goal as his shining moment. It is tarnished, he knows it, and he hates it.

 

Buffalo fans should flood the hall of fame induction and start a chant of No Goal! I hate Brett Hull, the dirty bastard.

[SwampD]

Word of the memo came out immediately after Game 6. Although we've never seen a copy of it, Darcy never came out and said the team didn't receive it, which you'd think would be the appropriate thing to say if the memo story was indeed a load of bull.

I know you tend to be a little anti Buffalo in these situations (maybe to appear unbiased), but if you are using Darcy's absence of a reaction as proof, why don't you use the absence of the actual memo as proof. You would think that if there was a memo, Hull or the Stars would have produced it by now.

[shrader]

He didn't have control of the puck as he entered the crease! Here is a

to the video. As it shows, his foot is in the crease before the save by Hasek, the rebound pops out into Hull's skates, his foot goes back into the crease, THEN he gathers up the rebound with a skate in the crease and puts the puck in the net.

 

It is not a goal. It was never a goal, and will never be a goal. Hull will spend the rest of his life defending it, because he describes that goal as his shining moment. It is tarnished, he knows it, and he hates it.

 

Buffalo fans should flood the hall of fame induction and start a chant of No Goal! I hate Brett Hull, the dirty bastard.

 

I'm sure he feels fine about the whole thing. I will never understand posts like this one though. What was he supposed to do, realize that his foot was in the crease and tell the refs about it? He was just doing his job. He's not the villain here, the NHL is.

[korab rules]

I'm sure he feels fine about the whole thing. I will never understand posts like this one though. What was he supposed to do, realize that his foot was in the crease and tell the refs about it? He was just doing his job. He's not the villain here, the NHL is.

 

 

No! He didn't do anything I wouldn't expect him to do! I AM mad at the NHL, but its a hell of a lot more satisfying to boo Hull than a faceless organization. Especially since Hull takes it so personally!

[shrader]

No! He didn't do anything I wouldn't expect him to do! I AM mad at the NHL, but its a hell of a lot more satisfying to boo Hull than a faceless organization. Especially since Hull takes it so personally!

 

I doubt he takes is personally. He's looking at his ring and laughing at all of us, just like the league and any other fanbase is when this is mentioned. And as for the league being faceless, just go with every other fan and go after Bettman. Everyone loves taking the easy way out of things.

 

And I should rephrase my original post. I get why people complain about Hull, I just think it's not the right response.

[korab rules]

I doubt he takes is personally. He's looking at his ring and laughing at all of us, just like the league and any other fanbase is when this is mentioned. And as for the league being faceless, just go with every other fan and go after Bettman. Everyone loves taking the easy way out of things.

 

And I should rephrase my original post. I get why people complain about Hull, I just think it's not the right response.

 

 

I disagree, I think Hull takes it very personally, which is why we read article after article of him defending his goal. That's my take from reading this newest article.

 

Maybe we are the only ones in the world who still care 10 years later, but between pucks going through the side of the net, skates in creases, mysterious memos no one has ever seen, and the general feeling of inferiority that haunts the city of Buffalo and its fans, we have to have something to bitch about to make ourselves feel better.

 

Today, its Brett Hull. Betman can have his turn in the barrel tomorrow, the little #%^$#!ing midget.

 

I tend to go easy on Betman, because I still feel if it wasn't for the NHL's efforts to keep the Sabres in Buffalo, the bankruptcy could have resulted in relocation. He is doing the same thing for phoenix now.

[Stoner]

Oh old and wise and grumpy one, please explain to me how Hull maintained CONTROL of the puck AFTER he took the initial shot? (And remember, the joystick doesn't work the same in real life as it does on NHL '99.)

 

By kicking the puck onto his stick.

 

The rule book defines control thusly: “Control of the puck” means the act of propelling the puck with the stick, hand or feet.

 

Listen, we can all debate whether there was a review, or a memo, but what happened on the ice should be clear. Hull was the last player, besides the goaltender, to touch the puck, so he was in technical possession of it. Before his left skate entered the crease, he kicked the puck onto his stick. Possession and control.

[Stoner]

Threats from the league?

 

And can we rename this thread to "dragged up from the depths yet again..."

 

And yet Lindy went out and yelled "No Goal!" at the rally? How did the league punish the Sabres for that? Oh yeah, No Goal II! It's all so obvious now.

[korab rules]

By kicking the puck onto his stick.

 

The rule book defines control thusly: “Control of the puck” means the act of propelling the puck with the stick, hand or feet.

 

Listen, we can all debate whether there was a review, or a memo, but what happened on the ice should be clear. Hull was the last player, besides the goaltender, to touch the puck, so he was in technical possession of it. Before his left skate entered the crease, he kicked the puck onto his stick. Possession and control.

 

It is not a goal. It was never a goal, and will never be a goal. Hull will spend the rest of his life defending it, because he describes that goal as his shining moment. It is tarnished, he knows it, and he hates it.

[Stoner]

I know you tend to be a little anti Buffalo in these situations (maybe to appear unbiased), but if you are using Darcy's absence of a reaction as proof, why don't you use the absence of the actual memo as proof. You would think that if there was a memo, Hull or the Stars would have produced it by now.

 

I'm not trying to appear unbiased. I'm trying to be unbiased. I don't believe that being a fan requires you to suspend reality. I never have believed that. Homerun Throwback is the classic example.

[Stoner]

It is not a goal. It was never a goal, and will never be a goal. Hull will spend the rest of his life defending it, because he describes that goal as his shining moment. It is tarnished, he knows it, and he hates it.

 

And I'm the old one? I haven't started repeating myself yet. :)

[SwampD]

I'm not trying to appear unbiased. I'm trying to be unbiased. I don't believe that being a fan requires you to suspend reality. I never have believed that. Homerun Throwback is the classic example.

I wasn't being critical. I think to be unbiased for your own team, you have to appear overly unbiased. But what about my point? Why have Hull or the Stars not been able to produce a memo?

 

 

For the record

 

1) I don't believe there ever was a memo

2) According to the rules at the time, it was not a goal

3) I'm more angry about Hasek letting in that softy than the blown call!