Toronto Lost the North and Well Beaten SabreSpace Horses

[FogBat]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

I think he should do it, then make the team sit first row, right behind the benches, so they are forced to see what playoff hockey looks like first hand.😂

 

So, if not another NHL arena, where will Toronto or Winnipeg play their “home” games? What other options are there? I don’t know enough about NCAA hockey to know if their arenas would be big enough.

How about at RIT?

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I think it matters who they play, and that they will try to reduce travel so much for the series.

They could be playing either Colorado, Vegas, or Minnesota.

If they play Vegas, I could see them making a home base in Phoenix or Los Angeles

If they play Minnesota, Maybe Chicago is the spot.

 

They are going to have to relocate for 2 weeks.  I don't think they would want to give the other team they are playing 7 home games (it might be an option) but to me it makes the most sense to have them practice, live, and play their 'home' games in a city with facilities that is the closest to who they are playing.

Thought the league was going to assign opponents in the semifinals based on records w/ the team w/ the highest regular season point total playing the 1 with the least.  Did that change?

If that's still the plan, should the Loafs come out of the North, they could still end up playing a team from the other 2 divisions, right?

[mjd1001]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Thought the league was going to assign opponents in the semifinals based on records w/ the team w/ the highest regular season point total playing the 1 with the least.  Did that change?

If that's still the plan, should the Loafs come out of the North, they could still end up playing a team from the other 2 divisions, right?

I don't know, that might be true.  I wasn't sure myself. What I was thinking though about where they would play...it simply would be they would be based in the closest facility to the team they are playing to reduce travel cost/time.

[LabattBlue]

Do the final four teams get seeded based on regular season point totals?

[Stoner]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Correct me if I am wrong, at the time didn't they say that technically, by the book, the goal was legal? But the entire season they had been calling the rule differently and did a 180 for the Hull goal? 

Am I remembering that totally wrong?

A memo with several clarifications was sent out in March. And, no, it was not written after Game 6. Darcy acknowledged receiving it in March. And Thorne and Clement talked about seeing it before the series. One of the clarifications stated that a player who maintained control of the puck could precede the puck in the crease and score.

Clarification #9: "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."

Forget the definition of control in 1999. The key word is "maintains." Had Hull legally controlled the puck, that control would have been only momentary.

Taro should be the one to stop obfuscating. I am not saying the goal was legit. The fact goals like it were legit for decades before the crease rule and will be legit as long as hockey is played on this earth after 1999 makes it tolerable for me. It's not like the puck was shot through the side of the net. It's also tolerable because in my opinion at whatever ungodly hour it was, Bryan Lewis mixed up possession and control. (Hull did maintain technical possession of the puck before scoring. It was that close to being a good goal.)

The stuff about Bettman being behind a curtain is Taro's opinion. It will remain that until he gives us some evidence. Yes, the review was not only wrong, it was quick, and they opened the doors.

Dallas won that Cup — on a bad call. That's sports.

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Dude, you have admitted that the goal was not legit.  All the rest of this is obfuscation & YOUR bitterness at having had a pearl you desperately & lovingly clutched at to have been proven to be paste. Not going to go back through it all, because it's a waste of time.  You know how this one ends as you've lived this rerun many times.  Spoiler alert:  the goal wasn't legit.  And no amount of crying by Hull about how mean the fans were nor obfuscation by you will change that fact. 

Say it w/ us, loud & proud: NO GOAL!!!

Oh, geez.

1 hour ago, Hawerchuk said:

Well said. I agree 100%. Not just because I'm a Sabre fan but because the rule that was followed all season was completely ignored on the biggest stage of the game (The Finals).

Ignored is a loaded word here. You're close to joining Taro in conspiracy country. The problem was that the memo came out too late in the regular season and Clarification #9 might never have been applied before Game 6. Lewis , under pressure, blew it.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The Great Satan will not win the North.

They may not even win against the Habs.  I can't see them beating the Peg.

If they do they should play all the games where the opponent in the Semi Final is located.  Are fans allowed to attend?  If not why would it matter for The Great Satan to have a 'home' arena?

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

A memo with several clarifications was sent out in March. And, no, it was not written after Game 6. Darcy acknowledged receiving it in March. And Thorne and Clement talked about seeing it before the series. One of the clarifications stated that a player who maintained control of the puck could precede the puck in the crease and score.

Clarification #9: "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."

Forget the definition of control in 1999. The key word is "maintains." Had Hull legally controlled the puck, that control would have been only momentary.

Taro should be the one to stop obfuscating. I am not saying the goal was legit. The fact goals like it were legit for decades before the crease rule and will be legit as long as hockey is played on this earth after 1999 makes it tolerable for me. It's not like the puck was shot through the side of the net. It's also tolerable because in my opinion at whatever ungodly hour it was, Bryan Lewis mixed up possession and control. (Hull did maintain technical possession of the puck before scoring. It was that close to being a good goal.)

The stuff about Bettman being behind a curtain is Taro's opinion. It will remain that until he gives us some evidence. Yes, the review was not only wrong, it was quick, and they opened the doors.

Dallas won that Cup — on a bad call. That's sports.

 

You appear to be intentionally falsifying things to fit your narrative.

Control absolutely mattered & Hull didn't have it.  

Because control wasn't maintained NOR was it gained until AFTER Hull had entered the crease & the puck had left it, and thus HE preceded the puck into the crease, clarification 9 was irrelevant & clarification 10 was the controlling interpretation & that said NO GOAL.

And you are trying to cloud the issues by staing the memo came out in March.  Nobody credible EVER claimed differently for more than a day or 2 after the game.  The issue wasn't the timing of the the memo's distribution to the teams, it was the fact that Bettman & crew pointed to the wrong clarification that was the issue; as you are WELL aware.

Brian Lewis was not the Video Goal Judge, so he had no business being involved.  Even if he WERE the VGJ, on the question as to whether the puck precedes the opposing team player into the crease or vice versa, per the rulebook the VGJ was to merely ADVISE the ref as to who & what were where and when; it was the ref's job to make the ultimate decision.  Both refs were kept out of the decision making process.  And that IS on record.

But, feel free to continue to make stuff up to try to recloud the issue.  Just like you have ever since you admitted you were wrong way back when after too many years to mention of being shown the evidence.

As I've maintained since that summer and as even you have begrudgingly agreed to in the past, the game should have resumed with a faceoff at the Sabres blue line to the left of Hasek.

Too bad the search function around here is so poor.  All of the details to this have been hashed & rehashed & rehashed yet again.  It would be nice to be able to have a reference section of archived threads forsubjects like this so that your biannual revisiting of this issue might be reduced to quadrennial or even less often.  

And, the debate has NEVER been about whether the crease rule as written should ever have been implemented.  (It was a horribly ill conceived rule.)  The issue at hand was always that the league had a rule in place & procedures to enforce the rule & they disregarded all on the biggest stage at the most important moment and changed rules both overtly (removal of the in the crease rule as written at the very next leaguewide meeting) & covertly (changing later the definition of gaining control to allow for a player to gain control before he used his stick on the puck) and lied all the while; and all in the name of expediency.

Again, Dallas didn't win nor earn the Stanley Cup.  They were awarded it.  And that awarding should ALWAYS have an asterisk next to it.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Taro T

[nfreeman]

The scars run deep.

But let’s keep it friendly here please.  

[Stoner]

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."

It's not a perfect fit.

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

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."

It's not a perfect fit.

It's the closest of all the clarifications per those who actually had access to the memo.  And when the play is broken down into components it does match the description.

After the shot, the rebound remained in the crease (Dallas possession, NOBODY in control, puck in the crease, no player in the crease.)

While puck is in the crease, Hull enters crease, kicking puck out of crease.  (Dallas possession, NOBODY in control, puck out of crease, player IN the crease.)

Now, attacking skater has entered the crease post shot and the puck is out of the crease.  Hull THEN gains control (aka has recovered the puck) while he is in the crease & the puck is out of the crease after a shot.  Which now is EXACTLY what Clarification 10 recites.  And a puck entering the net in that situation is NO GOAL.

And while you try to claim the distinction that moves this from Clarification 9 to Clarification 10 (or vice versa) is the word "maintain" it isn't.  You CAN'T maintain control after you shoot the puck.  Don't believe that?  Shoot the puck and then intentionally make it change direction 10' after you released it in a particular manner.  (Obviously a deflection off somebody isn't control.)  The real world doesn't work like video games. 

The key is when "control" is gained after the puck is shot & saved.  Under the rules in effect in 1999 a player needed to play a puck with his stick to GAIN control.  Kicking the puck was not enough to gain (establish) control.  Though, once control was gained, it could maintain control provided it was in a controlled manner.  The player hadn't "recovered" the puck until he had obtained "control".

Under today's rules, kicking the puck can establish control.  But they used 1999's rules in 1999, not today's rules.

So, once again, NO GOAL.

The rule itself was very simple & clear.  If a player is in the crease before the puck enters the crease, any goal would be disallowed.  The memo was to allow minor exceptions to this when a player kept control of the puck from outside the crease and then was in the crease while maintaining control provided he didn't interfere with the goalie.  The memo clouded issues to a degree to allow the league to not have to waive off all scoring plays but the Hull play didn't meet one of those exceptions.  But rather, it nearly identically matched one of the situations that was explicitly NO GOAL.

And this continuous rehashing of this issue by you is dull. 

[Weave]

6 hours ago, Taro T said:

And this continuous rehashing of this issue by you is dull. 

And yet you take the bait every time.......

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

And yet you take the bait every time.......

He brought it up. I'm the carp.

[Weave]

32 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

He brought it up. I'm the carp.

[Stoner]

For the record, Hull deflected the puck on goal, the puck stayed in the crease, Hull entered the crease, Hull fished at the puck, the puck rebounded off Hasek and left the crease, Hull left the crease, Hull kicked the puck while the puck was outside the crease, Hull's skate entered the crease as the puck went through and left the crease, Hull shot the puck with his skate inside the crease and his stick outside the crease, and scored.

Clarification 10 talks about a player entering the crease and staying there while the puck rebounds outside the crease.

It doesn't matter. It was a good hockey goal that shouldn't have counted because of the ridiculous crease rule and because there was no way to write a clarification that covered the bizarre scenario above. The best the league could do was to say that a player who was maintaining control of the puck could have a skate in the crease ahead of the puck, akin to the offside rule of skating backwards into the zone. That scenario would be straightforward: think of a player on a breakaway deking the goalie and cutting across the top of the crease before scoring.

Taro and I agree on that, and I don't appreciate the lecturing and insults, which are unnecessary. Even nfreeman saw that, and I am not a MFP.

The question I think is interesting is whether it's fair to rob the Stars of recognition for winning a Cup after a bitterly fought series ended by a classically good hockey goal. Awarded, not won? I can't agree with it. It's disrespectful.

I also can't get on board the expediency theory ("just give it to 'em") or, worse, the idea of a conspiracy to ensure Dallas won the Cup (or to ensure Buffalo didn't).

Taro can pretend to know every officiating procedure in place in 1999, because of course he does, but he has no idea what the procedure in place was for when those clarifications kicked in. You couldn't just have the video judge call down and tell the ref Hull's skate was in the crease and have the goal waived off. What about the breakaway scenario above? Would you call down and say his skate was in the crease? Of course it had to go to the director officiating. Under pressure, he blew the call. Can you blame him? He thought possession was the key. It was control. Had he made the call 100 times before? Of course not.

Some big lying coverup? They changed the rule after the season. Good for the NHL. Maybe they changed the definition of control to include kicking. So what?

As an aside, according to Vogl at The Athletic, Lewis maintained as of 2019 that he made the right call. Bettman did the same in Dallas on some anniversary of it.

I'd still love to see that memo. I've asked the NHL for it. I didn't get a reply.

These posts will self-destruct in four hours, only to reappear the next time Taro brings up the subject.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

For the record, Hull deflected the puck on goal, the puck stayed in the crease, Hull entered the crease, Hull fished at the puck, the puck rebounded off Hasek and left the crease, Hull left the crease, Hull kicked the puck while the puck was outside the crease, Hull's skate entered the crease as the puck went through and left the crease, Hull shot the puck with his skate inside the crease and his stick outside the crease, and scored.

Clarification 10 talks about a player entering the crease and staying there while the puck rebounds outside the crease.

It doesn't matter. It was a good hockey goal that shouldn't have counted because of the ridiculous crease rule and because there was no way to write a clarification that covered the bizarre scenario above. The best the league could do was to say that a player who was maintaining control of the puck could have a skate in the crease ahead of the puck, akin to the offside rule of skating backwards into the zone. That scenario would be straightforward: think of a player on a breakaway deking the goalie and cutting across the top of the crease before scoring.

Taro and I agree on that, and I don't appreciate the lecturing and insults, which are unnecessary. Even nfreeman saw that, and I am not a MFP.

The question I think is interesting is whether it's fair to rob the Stars of recognition for winning a Cup after a bitterly fought series ended by a classically good hockey goal. Awarded, not won? I can't agree with it. It's disrespectful.

I also can't get on board the expediency theory ("just give it to 'em") or, worse, the idea of a conspiracy to ensure Dallas won the Cup (or to ensure Buffalo didn't).

Taro can pretend to know every officiating procedure in place in 1999, because of course he does, but he has no idea what the procedure in place was for when those clarifications kicked in. You couldn't just have the video judge call down and tell the ref Hull's skate was in the crease and have the goal waived off. What about the breakaway scenario above? Would you call down and say his skate was in the crease? Of course it had to go to the director officiating. Under pressure, he blew the call. Can you blame him? He thought possession was the key. It was control. Had he made the call 100 times before? Of course not.

Some big lying coverup? They changed the rule after the season. Good for the NHL. Maybe they changed the definition of control to include kicking. So what?

As an aside, according to Vogl at The Athletic, Lewis maintained as of 2019 that he made the right call. Bettman did the same in Dallas on some anniversary of it.

I'd still love to see that memo. I've asked the NHL for it. I didn't get a reply.

These posts will self-destruct in four hours, only to reappear the next time Taro brings up the subject.

At least now, the next time you start this again we've got a fresh reminder that you admit that it wasn't a legit goal, regardless of the extent to which you might wish it was.  And, that by that, the Stanley Cup was not won but rather was awarded.  Brett Hull might feel disrespected by that, but don't care.  Respect is earned, not awarded.  And his lying to himself & everybody else that he scored a good goal is not respectworthy.

That Lewis & Bettman haven't changed their story doesn't make it any less false than the day they came up with it.  Your repeating their story doesn't make it any less false either.

And, ftr, there was no conspiracy before the game to give the SC the Stars.  But the league's handling of the call and the aftermath has been beyond controversial.

You can pretend that people aren't capable of reading and understanding the rulebook, but that wishfulness doesn't make it so.  The rule in place at the time was very straightforward, on matters about whether the player was in the crease before the puck, the final call was the refs, not the VGJ's call and CERTAINLY not the Director of Officiating's call.  Why in the world would you want it to go to the Director of Officiating rather than the people being paid to do their job?  Especially now, when you admit this person of authority made the wrong call, why say "of course, it had to go to the director of officiating?"  Why stop there?  Why not take it to HIS boss?  He was in the building as well.  Isn't his decision carrying even more weight?  If they're making stuff up as they go along, and you seem to support it, why stop there?

Can we blame Lewis for getting the call wrong?  Are you serious or just being disingenuous once again?  Of course we can blame him.  He's proving to be the worst of all bosses - the one who refuses to delegate authority to his staff even when there are documented procedures for him having delegated that authority.  Heck, his subordinate is ON RECORD as saying it was his own call and had the procedure been followed he would've made the correct call.  Given that knowledge, do you still want to take the decision from the guy that was delegated that authority to give it to the guy who hadn't even been a ref when video review was introduced?  (Not sure where you're getting he'd made that call 100's of times.  The rule was much different in the '60's-'90's when he was a ref.  But no biggie.)

Does it make sense that Lewis would make this call on his own, this 1 time, and as you correctly acknowledge, get it wrong, without a reason?  Not really IMHO.

But, what if the league had screwed up & let something like allowing what seemed to be 100 reporters onto the ice before they'd confirmed the goal was good and THEN realized they'd screwed up not just that but also that the video clearly showed the goal was not good?  Might they now be forced to decide QUICKLY which of 2 courses of action they could take?  Those being, annoy ESPN (& likely CBC as well) and tell them they have to eat more advertising revenue for whatever show had been scheduled to be showing at that early hour & embarrassingly pull those reporters off the ice, & then continue the game for God only knows how long; OR make up a reason for allowing the goal to stand and avoid the ire of the network(s) & the bad look of shooing the reporters off the ice.

We know which 1 they chose.  And that option ONLY works if they take the decision on the goal from the refs.  And that is what they did.  And Occom's Razor says that's WHY they did it.  100% for expediency.

You really seem to be disingenuous on this issue.  You've known and have acknowledged that it was Clarification 10 rather than Clarification 9 that was controlling on this, yet you only bring up Clarification 9.  You know that a player does not maintain control of the puck after shooting & that at the time of the play a player could not gain/regain control (aka recover the puck) by kicking the puck and that in no way did Hull maintain control of the puck through the play, yet that is what you claimed was the key issue.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Taro T

[Stoner]

I really think you've exhausted my interest in this topic. Thank you.

The bit about my wishing it was legit and other distortions are the end for me. It's telling you resort to that.

Go watch the goal and at least get the description of it right next time.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

It's been over 20 years now.

Can we just move on?

And there is no way that I see The Great Satan coming out of the Great White North.  None.  Zero.

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I really think you've exhausted my interest in this topic. Thank you.

The bit about my wishing it was legit and other distortions are the end for me. It's telling you resort to that.

Go watch the goal and at least get the description of it right next time.

What's telling is you won't answer questions.

Apologies if minor details were off at 11:30PM on a Friday night after a long week and a long time of not going back on it.  (At least however long it's been since you dragged me into this discussion the last time.  So, probably 2 years and more than a pandemic ago.  Have had a lot of other thoughts on the mind since the last time you dragged this up.)  The relevant parts that he entered the crease without control of the puck while the puck was not in the crease & that the decision was the refs to make still stand as correct and the former is the driving factor in why there was NO GOAL.  

You've exhaunted my interest in this discussion a good decade ago.  Good to know you claim to be at that point as well.

[stinky finger]

On 5/28/2021 at 3:52 AM, steveoath said:

Toronto won't win the Stanley Cup. 

Montreal will make sure of this.

[Thorner]

6 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

These posts will self-destruct in four hours, only to reappear the next time Taro brings up the subject.

 

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

At least now, the next time you start this again we've got a fresh reminder that you admit that it wasn't a legit goal, regardless of the extent to which you might wish it was.  And, that by that, the Stanley Cup was not won but rather was awarded.  Brett Hull might feel disrespected by that, but don't care.  Respect is earned, not awarded.  And his lying to himself & everybody else that he scored a good goal is not respectworthy.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Thorny

[Ducky]

I think the powers that be will let the American team into the country under increased restrictions. Teams must fly direct on a charter and all will be isolated something like the bubble was. Having said that, That might not happen. Winnipeg is the worst area on the continent for the virus right now so that might not happen. We are sending Covid patients to other province's ICUs.

Otherwise, I'd be okay with the Jets playing in their opponent's home ice if there are no fans allowed...we have a better road record than home record if I remember correctly.

We'd be playiing the Avs or Vegas.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Ducky said:

I think the powers that be will let the American team into the country under increased restrictions. Teams must fly direct on a charter and all will be isolated something like the bubble was. Having said that, That might not happen. Winnipeg is the worst area on the continent for the virus right now so that might not happen. We are sending Covid patients to other province's ICUs.

Otherwise, I'd be okay with the Jets playing in their opponent's home ice if there are no fans allowed...we have a better road record than home record if I remember correctly.

We'd be playiing the Avs or Vegas.

Yep.  If Winnipeg comes out of the North they would necessarily be the lowest remaining seed with Nashville & Moe-ray-all eliminated and the top seed will necessarily come from the West now that Vegas escaped Minnesota in 7.

[French Collection]

2 hours ago, Leaf Blower said:

Montreal will make sure of this.

I hope this goes to 7, softening up the winner for the Jets.

58 minutes ago, Ducky said:

I think the powers that be will let the American team into the country under increased restrictions. Teams must fly direct on a charter and all will be isolated something like the bubble was. Having said that, That might not happen. Winnipeg is the worst area on the continent for the virus right now so that might not happen. We are sending Covid patients to other province's ICUs.

Otherwise, I'd be okay with the Jets playing in their opponent's home ice if there are no fans allowed...we have a better road record than home record if I remember correctly.

We'd be playiing the Avs or Vegas.

Yeah, our northern Ontario ICUs are full of Manitobans. Hope your province gets a handle on the trend line soon.

[PromoTheRobot]