15 years ago today

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

:bag:

[darksabre]

I hate you.

[Randall Flagg]

I typed the date in google, just for kicks....first result, article entitled "Horror master Stephen King struck by vehicle" :(

[Hoss]

Do you want to die?

[MattPie]

:bag:

I hate you.

Do you want to die?

 

GBiD: Y'all best stay down there in Dallas for a bit.

[Guest Sloth]

Not cool man....not cool

[Iron Crotch]

See it on twitter, post it on here. See it on twitter, post it on here. Rinse and repeat.

[SwampD]

... I punched the steering wheel of my van only to find out that the airbag had been removed before I bought it and the faux cover that had been put on to make it look like I had one was now dented in five inches.

[spndnchz]

... I punched the steering wheel of my van only to find out that the airbag had been removed before I bought it and the faux cover that had been put on to make it look like I had one was now dented in five inches.

 

lmao

[Stoner]

... I punched the steering wheel of my van only to find out that the airbag had been removed before I bought it and the faux cover that had been put on to make it look like I had one was now dented in five inches.

 

Stop punching with your penis.

 

I kid.

 

Probably.

 

No Goal is the gift that keeps on giving. I've always said it would make a great book. Maybe the principals involved in the decision will start to talk as time goes on. It seems like a little bit more gets added to the story every year. I learned fairly recently that there was no rule change per se expressed in the infamous memo — the memo itself was a regurgitation of exceptions to the crease rule as outlined when the rule was actually adopted. Not that it matters. But it appears that criticism of the league for "making up stuff as they went along" was unjustified.

[X. Benedict]

http://www.thehockey...ndingly-bright/

 

 

On the anniversary of Brett Hull’s infamous goal and team’s low point, Sabres’ future is looking blindingly bright

Edited June 20, 2014 by X. Benedict

[Stoner]

http://www.thehockey...ndingly-bright/

 

 

On the anniversary of Brett Hull’s infamous goal and team’s low point, Sabres’ future is looking blindingly bright

Talk about a narrative.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

What's all the hubbub 'cos some ruski signed to play at Liverpool FC on this date 15 years ago?

[X. Benedict]

Talk about a narrative.

 

One thing you learn writing, is the guy with the byline doesn't usually write the headlines.

 

It is a pretty balanced piece. IMO

[Taro T]

Stop punching with your penis.

 

I kid.

 

Probably.

 

No Goal is the gift that keeps on giving. I've always said it would make a great book. Maybe the principals involved in the decision will start to talk as time goes on. It seems like a little bit more gets added to the story every year. I learned fairly recently that there was no rule change per se expressed in the infamous memo — the memo itself was a regurgitation of exceptions to the crease rule as outlined when the rule was actually adopted. Not that it matters. But it appears that criticism of the league for "making up stuff as they went along" was unjustified.

If you consider 2012 (at the absolute latest, I'm pretty sure it was pointed out to you ~5 years earlier but don't have the time nor inclination to determine when exactly in our debates starting in 2006 the fact the the NHL was mixing and matching scenarios 9 & 10 to justify their injustice) recently, then you are correct about only learning about the nature of the memo as 'recently.'

 

But your last sentence is flat out fabrication and obfuscation on your part. You know d*mn well that the league did make stuff up as they went along because they conflated possession & control. Dallas had possession all the way through the play. Hull didn't have control until the puck was on his stick which came after he was in the crease. You also know d*mn well that the league changed in the crease at the next league meeting and changed the definition of control a couple of years later to continue their obfuscation of the issue.

 

I'm not about to have this discussion w/ you again - it's tiresome, but I also am not about to let you cloud the issue for people that are new to this board. To them I say, the search function is your friend. [EDIT: where the frig did all our discussions on this topic go? They can't ALL have been lost in the great crash.]

Edited June 21, 2014 by Taro T

[Stoner]

Let me make it clearer (and, really, you're the one "obfuscating" my comment to suit your purpose, which seems to be that you can never admit that anyone other than yourself has possession and control of a fact; you've literally never been wrong here): the criticism of the league for changing the crease rule late in the 1998-99 season and hiding those changes in a memo is unjustified. And, yes, I read that surprising tidbit only in the last six months. And, no, of course, I can't find the link right now. But I will, or die trying.

 

As for the rest of it, there's no debate any more between us. Yes, the league conflated possession and control, and they screwed up the call. (Hull, however, did control the puck during the sequence on two occasions: when he tipped Modano's shot and when he pulled the puck out of Hasek's reach. Both times, the puck then hit Hasek, and control was wiped out.)

 

For newcomers to the debate, control was later defined to include the act of kicking the puck, but that did not exist in the rule book in 1999. Some have argued that the definition of control as it existed in the rule book then was too narrow (it was in the section on tripping and penalty shots, and what constitutes control during those situations) and that any reasonable ref or league official would have considered Hull to have controlled the puck when he kicked it onto his stick. I wouldn't make that argument in the context of justifying Hull's goal, because the memo talked about maintaining control.

 

Anywho, we now rejoin As the World Turns already in progress...

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Would anyone watch Loony Tunes if the coyote actually caught the roadrunner?........

[Taro T]

Let me make it clearer (and, really, you're the one "obfuscating" my comment to suit your purpose, which seems to be that you can never admit that anyone other than yourself has possession and control of a fact; you've literally never been wrong here): the criticism of the league for changing the crease rule late in the 1998-99 season and hiding those changes in a memo is unjustified. And, yes, I read that surprising tidbit only in the last six months. And, no, of course, I can't find the link right now. But I will, or die trying.

 

As for the rest of it, there's no debate any more between us. Yes, the league conflated possession and control, and they screwed up the call. (Hull, however, did control the puck during the sequence on two occasions: when he tipped Modano's shot and when he pulled the puck out of Hasek's reach. Both times, the puck then hit Hasek, and control was wiped out.)

 

For newcomers to the debate, control was later defined to include the act of kicking the puck, but that did not exist in the rule book in 1999. Some have argued that the definition of control as it existed in the rule book then was too narrow (it was in the section on tripping and penalty shots, and what constitutes control during those situations) and that any reasonable ref or league official would have considered Hull to have controlled the puck when he kicked it onto his stick. I wouldn't make that argument in the context of justifying Hull's goal, because the memo talked about maintaining control.

 

Anywho, we now rejoin As the World Turns already in progress...

My only purpose is to never let the lie that 'no goal' was legit gain any quarter. I will not admit to being wrong on this because I am not. I am still waiting for the puck to drop at the Sabres' blue line to the left of Hasek.

 

I will agree that the league didn't change the rule w/ the phantom memo. But the league absolutely changed the rule on the fly early that morning to justify their horribly expedient decision to allow the goal. And they used a misinterpretation of that phantom memo as their justification. (Which is why they only described it 15 years ago and refused to produce it - thus the term 'phantom memo' being used to refer to it.)

 

Though 'some' may have argued control was defined too narrowly (primarily Brett Hull and his mommy & daddy), the refs on the ice that night are not among them and are on record as stating that had they seen Hull's skate in the crease (Holzinger blocked the view of Gregson) the play would have been ruled no goal. I suppose now that Gregson and McCreary were unreasonable by 'their' definition?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Taro T

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Would anyone watch Loony Tunes if the coyote actually caught the roadrunner?........

 

I always hoped beyond hope that the Willie E. Coyote would put that big chicken into a pot.

[SwampD]

Every other goal that was scored in the exact same manner as the Hull goal that year was taken off the scoreboard. That's all I need to know that there was an injustice done toward the Sabres. Oh,yeah, that, and the fact that they changed the rules about nine minutes after that game was over. Anyone that says that was the right call is rewriting history.

[Claude_Verret]

Every other goal that was scored in the exact same manner as the Hull goal that year was taken off the scoreboard. That's all I need to know that there was an injustice done toward the Sabres. Oh,yeah, that, and the fact that they changed the rules about nine minutes after that game was over. Anyone that says that was the right call is rewriting history.

 

Yep.

[Stoner]

Every other goal that was scored in the exact same manner as the Hull goal that year was taken off the scoreboard. That's all I need to know that there was an injustice done toward the Sabres. Oh,yeah, that, and the fact that they changed the rules about nine minutes after that game was over. Anyone that says that was the right call is rewriting history.

 

I'd be surprised if there was another "exact same" situation as the Hull "goal." Claude here is a golf fan and I'm sure he knows there are the rules of golf and the decisions on the rules of golf. Weird things happen on the golf course. I think you can look at the memo as hockey's version of "decisions on the…" That said, no one here is arguing it was the right call. Not anymore, anyway. When I thought kicking the puck constituted control, I argued that it was.

[Stoner]

My only purpose is to never let the lie that 'no goal' was legit gain any quarter. I will not admit to being wrong on this because I am not. I am still waiting for the puck to drop at the Sabres' blue line to the left of Hasek.

 

I will agree that the league didn't change the rule w/ the phantom memo. But the league absolutely changed the rule on the fly early that morning to justify their horribly expedient decision to allow the goal. And they used a misinterpretation of that phantom memo as their justification. (Which is why they only described it 15 years ago and refused to produce it - thus the term 'phantom memo' being used to refer to it.)

 

Though 'some' may have argued control was defined too narrowly (primarily Brett Hull and his mommy & daddy), the refs on the ice that night are not among them and are on record as stating that had they seen Hull's skate in the crease (Holzinger blocked the view of Gregson) the play would have been ruled no goal. I suppose now that Gregson and McCreary were unreasonable by 'their' definition?

 

In the days after No Goal, the Sabres acknowledged receiving the memo. Gary Thorne mentioned seeing the memo on the air that morning when the controversy started coming to light. Budd Bailey of the News quoted it here: http://buddbailey.bl...go-tonight.html (And although I like Budd and he's helped me out with some things, I would not encourage anyone to read that whole piece — Budd has it quite mixed up.)

 

So I don't get how it was "phantom."

 

While we now agree that the call was wrong, where we'll probably never agree is on your idea that there was some kind of conspiracy involving changing the rule, Bettman intervening to throw the series to Dallas and so on. I think you know the league isn't that competent. It was very late (or early), and they screwed up. (Edit: To clarify, yes, in the postgame presser, Bryan Lewis appeared to change the rule. He did so by misspeaking, I think. What I'm trying to say is that after the goal was scored, I don't think Lewis jumped up and said, "You know what, screw maintaining control, let's say all you have to maintain is possession.")

Edited June 21, 2014 by PASabreFan

[SwampD]

 

 

I'd be surprised if there was another "exact same" situation as the Hull "goal." Claude here is a golf fan and I'm sure he knows there are the rules of golf and the decisions on the rules of golf. Weird things happen on the golf course. I think you can look at the memo as hockey's version of "decisions on the…" That said, no one here is arguing it was the right call. Not anymore, anyway. When I thought kicking the puck constituted control, I argued that it was.

Soooo, what's the argument here, then? Is there one?

[Stoner]

Soooo, what's the argument here, then? Is there one?

 

Not really. I think Taro misread what I reported about the memo and decided to attack me. On this topic, he has always considered me his personal bitch.