"No goal," the saga continues...

[wjag]

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!

 

It was 2 in the morning.. He was playing his second game of the night...

[SwampD]

It was 2 in the morning.. He was playing his second game of the night...

Sorry, I should have said, "the softy in regulation", not the game winner.

[Stoner]

I just discovered a very interesting article written by Budd Bailey, who was covering the Sabres for the News during the finals, where he says he read the memo -- and he quotes it. I don't have the time right now to go much more into it, but I will later. I think this is going to change some minds.

[Bmwolf21]

I'm actually more interested that the memo actually does exist, which to me is almost as big a deal as No Goal. Because the existence of such a memo says to me that the league knew rule was BS and overly broad to begin with, and even more damning, decided halfway through the year (as is the NHL's M.O.) to "clarify" (read: change) the rule before the playoffs.

[Stoner]

http://buddbailey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ten-years-ago-tonight.html

 

The NHL cited clarification number nine, which said, "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. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone.")

[wjag]

What always bothered me was the refs refusing to look at the goal. It was the SCF and an epic game was being played. A controversial goal had been scored and they refused to look at it. I never understood that part of it. All I could conclude is they wanted to go home and shirked their reponsibilities...

[korab rules]

http://buddbailey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ten-years-ago-tonight.html

 

The NHL cited clarification number nine, which said, "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. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone.")

You cite the article, but the author reached the opposite conclusion! He says this was one interpretation, but ultimately concludes it was wrong.

[shrader]

http://buddbailey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ten-years-ago-tonight.html

 

The NHL cited clarification number nine, which said, "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. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone.")

 

The memo definitely existed, but the story at the time was that it was created by the league after the fact. So seeing and quoting the memo doesn't counter that idea at all... unless Bailey saw it before game 6.

[Stoner]

The memo definitely existed, but the story at the time was that it was created by the league after the fact. So seeing and quoting the memo doesn't counter that idea at all... unless Bailey saw it before game 6.

 

Jesus.

[Stoner]

You cite the article, but the author reached the opposite conclusion! He says this was one interpretation, but ultimately concludes it was wrong.

 

Interpretation of what? He's quoting the memo word for word.

[korab rules]

Interpretation of what? He's quoting the memo word for word.

He quotes the memo, and then applies the facts to the memo and concludes clarification #9 doesn't apply. He also cites clarification #10, concludes that clarification is most applicable to the circumstances, and that the correct result was NO GOAL!!!

[korab rules]

He quotes the memo, and then applies the facts to the memo and concludes clarification #9 doesn't apply. He also cites clarification #10, concludes that clarification is most applicable to the circumstances, and that the correct result was NO GOAL!!!

On June 19, 1999, I was sitting in the auxiliary media area upstairs in Marine Midland Arena, waiting for Game Six of the Stanley Cup finals to end. And waiting and waiting and waiting.

 

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the controversial game, and I was there for The Buffalo News. As our deadlines slowly sailed by, my planned story about how the Sabres had generated some offensive opportunities if not goals seemed less and less relevant. By 1 a.m., I just wanted the game to end so I could do my work and go home. But the game had other ideas.

 

Finally at 1:30 or so, Brett Hull scored, and those in the press area muttered something about "finally" and headed to the press elevator to go to the locker rooms. I remember someone saying on the way down, "Hull's foot probably was in the crease." He was joking, and we all laughed. After all, the "foot in the crease" rule was an issue that seemed to come up constantly all that season. Then we got off the elevator, walked down the hall and entered a full-fledged blow-up about the goal's legality.

 

I wrote my sidebar and a notebook in a hurry. I don't think it was exactly poetry, but it helped fill the space in the newspaper that next morning. But my best work in the subject, came some time later, when I wrote the following for The Sporting News:

 

That sound you may have heard this week was my jaw hitting the ground.

 

I've now read the NHL's supplemental rules about goals in the crease, and I'm willing to say that the goal that ended Game Six of the Stanley Cup Finals should not have counted. That's an 180-degree turn from my feelings after it happened.

 

Let's review the play one more time. Mike Modano of the Stars put a shot on goal. Brett Hull may or may not have gotten his stick on the puck in an effort to deflect the shot. The puck bounced off Dominik Hasek and into an area in front of the crease. Hull appeared to direct the puck from his left skate to his forehand -- and keep in mind that according to the NHL's rules, possession can only be obtained by having the puck on one's stick. Then Hull moved his left skate into the crease as he fired the puck past Hasek for the winning goal.

 

While the rule book states that a goal cannot be scored if an offensive player has his foot in the crease, an internal NHL memo states that the rule is not absolute. A March memo listed 12 situations that could come up. Two could be considered relevant here.

 

The NHL cited clarification number nine, which said, "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. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone.")

 

Clarification number 10 states, "An attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original attacking player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed."

 

All right, let's start with the fact that the Hull "goal" did not fit either classification neatly. You probably could argue that in such cases the main rule should therefore apply, that a goal can't be scored with a skate in the crease.

 

If you had to pick which example was more relevant here, it probably would be number 10. Hull didn't have possession (as the league defines it) of the puck until it was on his stick, even if he did deflect the first shot. Therefore, clarification number nine would not apply. And he didn't clearly have possession, take a shot, collect the rebound, and shovel the puck home either.

 

In clarification number 10, Hull certainly recovered the puck after an initial shot and scored while in the crease. It's not a perfect fit, but it's the closest one available. When the NHL first explained its rule, it said that a player had to have possession and control of the puck as he scored in order to record a legal goal even with a skate in the crease. I took that to mean "at the time of the shot," comparing it to a breakaway when a player is touching the crease when he scores.

 

But the supplemental instructions show that Hull had to have control of the puck for a longer period than that. With all that in mind, I can come to only one conclusion. No goal.

 

I still think in a perfect world that Hull's goal should have counted. I'm a believer in "no harm, no foul" in such cases. The foot in the crease had nothing to do with anything. I still think the Sabres have themselves to blame for not having a defenseman in Hull's vicinity. I still think the NHL got into trouble because its published rules were not the actual playing rules. And I'd still like to know who opened the Zamboni doors after Hull put the puck in the net.

 

But I no longer think the goal should have counted. That means the final outcome of the series always will be slightly tainted.

 

 

There is the article for posterity. Thank you, apple for adding cut and paste to the last iPhone operating system upgrade.

[korab rules]

The memo definitely existed, but the story at the time was that it was created by the league after the fact. So seeing and quoting the memo doesn't counter that idea at all... unless Bailey saw it before game 6.

Bailey doesn't claim he saw it before the game, in fact he states the opposite in the article at issue. I'm not big into conspiracy theories, though. What I find sad is that the sabres and bills (SB XXV) were involved in perhaps the greatest deciding games ever for their respective sports, and managed to come out on the losing end of both.

[korab rules]

http://buddbailey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ten-years-ago-tonight.html

 

The NHL cited clarification number nine, which said, "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. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone.")

The NHL didn't cite #%^$#! until after the fact. They couldn't even be bothered to review a Stanley Cup deciding goal.

[Taro T]

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.

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

 

Great, you've just proven my point. You provided the CURRENT definition of "control of the puck." That definition was not the one in place in 1999. In 1999, "control of the puck" was defined in Rule 91 - Tripping. It stated:

 

91. Tripping

 

...

 

(b) When a player, in control of the puck on the opponent's side of the

center red line and having no other opponent to pass than the goalkeeper, is

tripped or otherwise fouled from behind, thus preventing a reasonable

scoring opportunity, a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending

side. Nevertheless, the Referee shall not stop play until the attacking side

has lost possession of the puck to the defending side.

 

(NOTE 4) The intention of this Rule is to restore a reasonable scoring

opportunity which has been lost by reason of a foul from behind when the

foul is committed on the opponent's side of the red line. "Control of the

puck" means the act of propelling the puck with the stick. 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."

 

Care to try to explain it again oh old, wise, and grumpy one?

 

 

And, I believe the memo probably did actually exist. BUT as Budd Bailey points out, the league chose an example that didn't fit the Hull situation to justify the Hull decision. Strike 2.

[djwilli3]

http://buddbailey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ten-years-ago-tonight.html

 

The NHL cited clarification number nine, which said, "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. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone.")

 

Looking at the video and reading that rule, Hull's actions violated the rule when he scored the goal. Had he scored on the initial entry into the crease, then shot the puck, that would have been a goal. That did not happen. He lost possession after the first shot. Hasek saved it. Then, with BOTH feet in the crease, he kicks the puck to his skate and shoots AGAIN while still in the crease and never leaving the crease. Therefore, he did not enter and shoot with possession, he possessed illegally and shot. That, sir is not a goal, no matter how unbiased you were. There's a reason so many sports pages the next day called the cup win questionable and some went so far as to call it a "tainted cup." They can quote that crap all they want, but the play doesn't fit within the rendering given there. Not to mention, why has this memo never been published? Where is it on the NHL website, and why didn't the Stars wave it around after the goal saying that the NHL had already ruled on the issue? Those are significant questions that have still never been answered to anyone's satisfaction.

[Stoner]

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

 

Great, you've just proven my point. You provided the CURRENT definition of "control of the puck." That definition was not the one in place in 1999. In 1999, "control of the puck" was defined in Rule 91 - Tripping. It stated:

 

 

 

Care to try to explain it again oh old, wise, and grumpy one?

 

 

And, I believe the memo probably did actually exist. BUT as Budd Bailey points out, the league chose an example that didn't fit the Hull situation to justify the Hull decision. Strike 2.

 

Do you have a link for that? Not doubting it, I'd just like to look around the rest of the 1999 rules.

[Stoner]

Looking at the video and reading that rule, Hull's actions violated the rule when he scored the goal. Had he scored on the initial entry into the crease, then shot the puck, that would have been a goal. That did not happen. He lost possession after the first shot. Hasek saved it. Then, with BOTH feet in the crease, he kicks the puck to his skate and shoots AGAIN while still in the crease and never leaving the crease. Therefore, he did not enter and shoot with possession, he possessed illegally and shot. That, sir is not a goal, no matter how unbiased you were. There's a reason so many sports pages the next day called the cup win questionable and some went so far as to call it a "tainted cup." They can quote that crap all they want, but the play doesn't fit within the rendering given there. Not to mention, why has this memo never been published? Where is it on the NHL website, and why didn't the Stars wave it around after the goal saying that the NHL had already ruled on the issue? Those are significant questions that have still never been answered to anyone's satisfaction.

 

You don't lose possession of the puck when it rebounds off the goalie. Dude, you need to watch the video again, objectively, and tell me what Hull really did. We can agree to disagree on how to interpret the rules, but when you're distorting what clearly happened, it's hard to take you seriously.

 

Are you doubting sportswriter Budd Bailey's quoting of it? Isn't that proof enough that the memo existed? Unless you believe in vast right wing conspiracies. Sorry, that was bad. :)

[Taro T]

Do you have a link for that? Not doubting it, I'd just like to look around the rest of the 1999 rules.

I am sorry I do not. Going off of the books on my bookshelf. But I do know that is the way that rule read from at least '92-'93 through '01-'02, although Tripping was rule 84 up through '95 (maybe '96 as well; I don't have that rule book).

[Stoner]

I am sorry I do not. Going off of the books on my bookshelf. But I do know that is the way that rule read from at least '92-'93 through '00-'01, although Tripping was rule 84 up through '95 (maybe '96 as well; I don't have that rule book).

 

Is control defined any other way in that rule book?

[Taro T]

Is control defined any other way in that rule book?

Not that I am aware of.

 

You can check for yourself: Linky

 

Ironically, Rule 91 has a broken link in '99 and '00. If you check out the link in '01 the note is still the same as I quoted earlier, except it is Note 5 in that version.

[Taro T]

What always bothered me was the refs refusing to look at the goal. It was the SCF and an epic game was being played. A controversial goal had been scored and they refused to look at it. I never understood that part of it. All I could conclude is they wanted to go home and shirked their reponsibilities...

It wasn't the refs. It was the guys upstairs. (And Bettman was the biggest guy upstairs.) The refs followed procedure. According to Bryan Lewis, head of officiating at the time and Bettman's designated patsie, the decision it was a good goal was made upstairs. That was simply one more item where the rulebook (in effect at the time) clearly stated it was the referee who would make the decision, not the VGJ nor anyone else "upstairs."

[Stoner]

When I said Budd Bailey's article would change some minds, I had no idea it would be mine. But, it has. The text of the memo, which I had never seen, and Taro's clarification on the definition of control in 1999, are game-changers.

 

Two assumptions. One is that Bailey is right when he says only two of the 12 clarifications in the memo are relevant to Hull's goal. I have no reason to doubt Budd, but I do wonder how there are 10 exceptions to the crease rule that couldn't have some application to the goal. Second is that Taro is correct in citing the definition of control from the 99 rule book. I'm sure he is.

 

So Hull had possession of the puck before his left skate entered the crease on the kick -- he was the last player to have touched the puck other than Dom. But he did not have control of it -- Hull played the puck in the crease, controlling it, but then it rebounded off Hasek and outside the crease, nullifying control. The subsequent kick did not constitute control, as it does today.

[Stoner]

I'm actually more interested that the memo actually does exist, which to me is almost as big a deal as No Goal. Because the existence of such a memo says to me that the league knew rule was BS and overly broad to begin with, and even more damning, decided halfway through the year (as is the NHL's M.O.) to "clarify" (read: change) the rule before the playoffs.

 

They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Imagine in Game 6 if Miro had broken in, deked Belfour, gone around him and scored with the toe of his skate in the crease. Without the memo, the goal does not count.

[North Buffalo]

I thought I might weigh in with some intelligent interpretation, but realize that in this discussion it is not necessary... Screw it, the Refs were tired and called it a night and the NHL wrote a memo after the fact to justify it.... Whatever....

 

Still IMO No Goal and the Sabres got screwed.