Taro T Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 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.") PA, it wasn't a conspiracy, in the sense that they wanted to hose the Sabres. It WAS a conspiracy in that they realized they ####ed up but couldn't/wouldn't admit it. And changing the crease rule isn't proof of the 'conspiracy;' changing 'control' is. And do you honestly believe that Bryan Lewis didn't understand the rule? If you tried to say Gary didn't fully understand the rule, I might cut you dome slack; but he wasn't standing there at the podium; the head of officials was. I call BS. I know for a fact that the people in charge that night knew the goal might not be legit when they opened the Zamboni door. I won't (and never did in all the years we discussed this) reveal my source for that, and therefore understand your not believing me on that singular point. 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. ;) Can you blame me when you wear your 'never hire a weasel when a ferret will do' panties? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 It really is the gift that keeps giving. The rewriting of history on both sides of the issue is impressive. Thorne may have mentioned the memo. It certainly wasn't the next morning. The NHL knew they F'ed up and absolutely tried to cover their tracks. One question. As the rules were understood at the time of the goal, if there was a coaches challenge, would the goal have been overturned? I'm still trying to figure out how Hasek getting beaten in the six hole was let go. That one is even more mind-blowing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 It really is the gift that keeps giving. The rewriting of history on both sides of the issue is impressive. Thorne may have mentioned the memo. It certainly wasn't the next morning. The NHL knew they F'ed up and absolutely tried to cover their tracks. One question. As the rules were understood at the time of the goal, if there was a coaches challenge, would the goal have been overturned? I'm still trying to figure out how Hasek getting beaten in the six hole was let go. That one is even more mind-blowing to me. Until someone produces physical proof that the memo exists or existed I refuse to believe it did and that the league didn't threaten secret sanctions against the Sabres if they didn't keep their mouths shut after the fact. I also believe that anyone who came out saying the league memo existed was paid to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 It really is the gift that keeps giving. The rewriting of history on both sides of the issue is impressive. Thorne may have mentioned the memo. It certainly wasn't the next morning. The NHL knew they F'ed up and absolutely tried to cover their tracks. One question. As the rules were understood at the time of the goal, if there was a coaches challenge, would the goal have been overturned? I'm still trying to figure out how Hasek getting beaten in the six hole was let go. That one is even more mind-blowing to me. The Sabres said they got the memo! I posted a link where a respected Buffalo News sportswriter quoted it! I don't really hold it against people who haven't been as semi-obsessed with the topic as I have, but, come on… the league issued the memo in March. Teams got it. Media people read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 The Sabres said they got the memo! I posted a link where a respected Buffalo News sportswriter quoted it! I don't really hold it against people who haven't been as semi-obsessed with the topic as I have, but, come on… the league issued the memo in March. Teams got it. Media people read it. And yet no one ever produced it. Wouldn't that be a document you'd file in your folder of league memos to refer to later? Funny that no one filed a single copy of that memo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Until someone produces physical proof that the memo exists or existed I refuse to believe it did and that the league didn't threaten secret sanctions against the Sabres if they didn't keep their mouths shut after the fact. I also believe that anyone who came out saying the league memo existed was paid to do so. I've never been prouder to be your father. You know I don't have long to post. Doc said three months, maybe four. I will live on through you. I will live on through you. And yet no one ever produced it. Wouldn't that be a document you'd file in your folder of league memos to refer to later? Funny that no one filed a single copy of that memo. Darcy was probably scanning everything during the big Optical Character Recognition craze of 99, then he shredded it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 I've never been prouder to be your father. You know I don't have long to post. Doc said three months, maybe four. I will live on through you. I will live on through you. Darcy was probably scanning everything during the big Optical Character Recognition craze of 99, then he shredded it. :lol: To me there is no more worthy conspiracy than No Goal. There are a lot of things I'll give the benefit of the doubt to but the facts surrounding this are just too suspicious to gloss over. You'd think the Dallas Stars or the NHL would have reproduced the memo in the media somewhere just for posterity. But no... There was no memo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) The Sabres said they got the memo! I posted a link where a respected Buffalo News sportswriter quoted it! I don't really hold it against people who haven't been as semi-obsessed with the topic as I have, but, come on… the league issued the memo in March. Teams got it. Media people read it. That link was to a story written ten years after the fact. In it, he quotes what he himself wrote "some time later". You then say that he "has it quite mixed up". Help me out here, what sort of truth am I supposed to gleen from that article again? Edited June 22, 2014 by SwampD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 :lol: To me there is no more worthy conspiracy than No Goal. There are a lot of things I'll give the benefit of the doubt to but the facts surrounding this are just too suspicious to gloss over. You'd think the Dallas Stars or the NHL would have reproduced the memo in the media somewhere just for posterity. But no... There was no memo. I know what you're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 I know what you're doing. We both know Rigas and Quinn would have taken the bribe. Darcy would go along with it because he was still the new guy and didn't want to get fired. Lindy probably had no idea if a memo existed or not anyway. He's probably the only innocent one in all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 We both know Rigas and Quinn would have taken the bribe. Darcy would go along with it because he was still the new guy and didn't want to get fired. Lindy probably had no idea if a memo existed or not anyway. He's probably the only innocent one in all of this. Rigas had fired Quinn. Quinn was certainly working under deep cover for the league. I bet it was Quinn, the man holding the umbrella, who opened the Zamboni door. Which led to Quinn getting a piece of the Sabres. And, ultimately, to Pegula, who, conveniently, doesn't remember No Goal ever happening. Interesting. That link was to a story written ten years after the fact. In it, he quotes what he himself wrote "some time later". You then say that he "has it quite mixed up". Help me out here, what sort of truth am I supposed to gleen from that article again? Well, OK. The author writes he has "now" seen a copy of the memo, 10 years later. So it could be something the league phonied up afterwards. What we need is absolute proof that the memo was actually sent out in March of 1999. That will be hard. Anyone who says they received it can be accused of lying. Gary Thorne mentioned seeing it, but that was after the goal, and Bettman probably was holding Thorne's infant son in front of his face, with a knife to its throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 We both know Rigas and Quinn would have taken the bribe. Darcy would go along with it because he was still the new guy and didn't want to get fired. Lindy probably had no idea if a memo existed or not anyway. He's probably the only innocent one in all of this. If there was a memo, it came out after that game. And as to my steering wheel, I'm 6'4", why do you think I married someone 4'11". Just sayin'. And I love those late night commercials for male enhancement. I would never want a bigger #####,... just smaller hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 I know for a fact that the people in charge that night knew the goal might not be legit when they opened the Zamboni door. I won't (and never did in all the years we discussed this) reveal my source for that, and therefore understand your not believing me on that singular point. You mean the people in charge of the door? Did they get some communication from league officials to open the door? Toward what end? To undercut Bryan Lewis' ability to review and overturn the goal? Or was Lewis in on it? You can see how it's not all that plausible that some conspiracy was hatched so quickly. In the video I'm linking here, Dallas (presumably) media started entering the ice from the runway behind the Dallas bench 21 seconds after the goal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3wZ8o05H80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Should this goal have counted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 Should this goal have counted? Irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 You mean the people in charge of the door? Did they get some communication from league officials to open the door? Toward what end? To undercut Bryan Lewis' ability to review and overturn the goal? Or was Lewis in on it? You can see how it's not all that plausible that some conspiracy was hatched so quickly. In the video I'm linking here, Dallas (presumably) media started entering the ice from the runway behind the Dallas bench 21 seconds after the goal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3wZ8o05H80 The league was in charge that night, not the Sabres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Irrelevant. It's relevant in that it might demonstrate how things can get pretty loosey goosey after midnight. And I highly doubt any of the Buffalo conspiracy theorists would argue the league wanted to help the Sabres win that game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I wish for someone to tabulate, for 1994-1999, the total % of regulation goals reviewed/overturned vs. the total % of overtime goals reviewed/overturned. I have a hypothesis that Overtime Goals just simply weren't reviewed as often. I have a corollary to that hypothesis, that those goals weren't reviewed as often because the NHL did not have a pre-emptive process in place to control the ice while the goals were reviewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) I wish for someone to tabulate, for 1994-1999, the total % of regulation goals reviewed/overturned vs. the total % of overtime goals reviewed/overturned. I have a hypothesis that Overtime Goals just simply weren't reviewed as often. I have a corollary to that hypothesis, that those goals weren't reviewed as often because the NHL did not have a pre-emptive process in place to control the ice while the goals were reviewed. Interesting. Of course the league maintains that Hull's goal was reviewed. The officials did stand by the glass and apparently got the "good goal" signal. I think the conventional wisdom is that the league couldn't and wouldn't overturn the goal because the ice was already littered with people. I'd like to think it didn't really matter. Of course many others think the situation conveniently fell in Bettman's lap and he was more than happy to slip Dallas the Cup. Edited June 23, 2014 by PASabreFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Interesting. Of course the league maintains that Hull's goal was reviewed. The officials did stand by the glass and apparently got the "good goal" signal. I think the conventional wisdom is that the league couldn't and wouldn't overturn the goal because the ice was already littered with people. I'd like to think it didn't really matter. Of course many others think the situation conveniently fell in Bettman's lap and he was more than happy to slip Dallas the Cup. Gregson is on record as stating that if he had been told Hull's skate was in the crease, the goal would have been waived off. That didn't happen. I wish for someone to tabulate, for 1994-1999, the total % of regulation goals reviewed/overturned vs. the total % of overtime goals reviewed/overturned. I have a hypothesis that Overtime Goals just simply weren't reviewed as often. I have a corollary to that hypothesis, that those goals weren't reviewed as often because the NHL did not have a pre-emptive process in place to control the ice while the goals were reviewed. I expect that if you find that data, the results you are expecting won't hold. Except for rare games, such as potentially SC deciding games, there isn't a need to 'control the ice.' Alternatively stated, when's the last time we saw a big glut of reporters and family on the ice for a February game between Florida and St. Louis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 There were a number of things that happened after that goal that raised suspicions. If the goal was in fact legal according to the "mysterious memo", and that fact was stated immediately after the game ended, why did the NHL feel the need to have Colin Campbell do TV and radio interviews all the next day explaining why the goal was in fact a legal one? (The Sabres had a goal called back in an eerily similar situation against the Flyers in February. Perhaps that dissallowed goal was why the league issued the memo in March?) The real story is this: it was after 1 AM, many fans had already left, both teams were nearly spent and both the NHL brass and the TV folks wanted to go home. Unless Brett Hull picked up the puck with his glove and threw it into the net, any goal, no matter how borderline, was going to count. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 It's relevant in that it might demonstrate how things can get pretty loosey goosey after midnight. And I highly doubt any of the Buffalo conspiracy theorists would argue the league wanted to help the Sabres win that game. No. It's irrelevant because those two goals were scored under a different set of rules. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, they actually changed the wording at some point from (paraphrasing here) "not allowing the goalie to do his business in the crease" to (paraphrasing here, too) "any body part in the crease". Again, I don't really think they did it on purpose, but after they F'd up they had to cover up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 Gregson is on record as stating that if he had been told Hull's skate was in the crease, the goal would have been waived off. That didn't happen. I expect that if you find that data, the results you are expecting won't hold. Except for rare games, such as potentially SC deciding games, there isn't a need to 'control the ice.' Alternatively stated, when's the last time we saw a big glut of reporters and family on the ice for a February game between Florida and St. Louis? In thinking more like a potential review on a third out in baseball where they actively hold the players on the field rather than heading to the dugout. Not reporters and family. The losing players start to leave immediately after the goal and the winners storm the ice. This happens I. Every overtime from October to June. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 In thinking more like a potential review on a third out in baseball where they actively hold the players on the field rather than heading to the dugout. Not reporters and family. The losing players start to leave immediately after the goal and the winners storm the ice. This happens I. Every overtime from October to June. Not when there is suspicion that the goal wasn't legit it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Not when there is suspicion that the goal wasn't legit it doesn't. http://youtu.be/33-cTL5mmrY Edited June 23, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.