Toronto Lost the North and Well Beaten SabreSpace Horses

[FogBat]

@SwampD you're a far more knowledgeable hockey poster than I am. So, I really want to give you the benefit of a doubt that you started this thread to get under the skin of the team's FO/ownership. If not, then I know that you're much better than this.

[stinky finger]

16 hours ago, French Collection said:

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

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

Toronto is done. 

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Leaf Blower said:

Toronto is done. 

Let's hope. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The Great Satan is going complete Great Satan on this series too.

I anticipate a complete collapse in game 7.

GO HABS!!

MUST WIN!!

For those of you who are kind of new here, Montreal is my #2.

Edited May 30, 2021 by New Scotland (NS)
all those missing letters are important if you want to type goodly ...

[stinky finger]

5 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

The Great Satan is going complete Great Satan on this series too.

I anticipate a complete colapse in game 7.

GO HABS!!

MUST WIN!!

For those of you who are kind of new here, Montreal is my #2.

 

Same here.

Montreal is my 2nd favorite.

My joy thus far has come from Edmonton's monumental failure and the inevitable collapse of the Leafs.

 

 

 

[stinky finger]

 

Now, I just need the Isles to step up.

[SwampD]

On 5/30/2021 at 9:34 AM, Crosschecking said:

@SwampD you're a far more knowledgeable hockey poster than I am. So, I really want to give you the benefit of a doubt that you started this thread to get under the skin of the team's FO/ownership. If not, then I know that you're much better than this.

Not sure what this means. I was just posting what I thought was an interesting question.

I didn’t know it was going to yield some fantastic Taro/ PA cuddle time.

 

(... did PA really say that the goal should not have counted? And in my opinion, Dallas was awarded the cup, they didn’t earn it, and I don’t give a fig about disrespecting them.)

[FogBat]

10 hours ago, SwampD said:

Not sure what this means. I was just posting what I thought was an interesting question.

I didn’t know it was going to yield some fantastic Taro/ PA cuddle time.

 

(... did PA really say that the goal should not have counted? And in my opinion, Dallas was awarded the cup, they didn’t earn it, and I don’t give a fig about disrespecting them.)

So, it was off the top of your head. Got it. No problem. It happens to me too, but it normally doesn't involve hockey.

But since you mentioned the "cuddle time", that was a hilarious description! We tend to have our periodic male soap opera on here that seems to resemble the sporadic Red Green reruns.

Ah, such are the days of our lives on here.

[JoeSchmoe]

So it looks like we can stick a fork in this thread! 🤣

[Zamboni]

Yea. I knew the fork was needed the moment it was started 😂

[LGR4GM]

On 5/27/2021 at 7:36 PM, SwampD said:

I mentioned this in the Blue Jays thread but it got lost.

If the Leafs come out of the North, do they play in Buffalo, as well? Precedent has been set and I don’t see Canada opening up any time soon.

If not Buffalo, then where?

 

... how Buffalo would it be if the Leafs went on to win it all and the first Stanley Cup won in Buffalo went to Toronto.

 

 

Guess what? It doesn't matter now. 

[Doohicksie]

On 5/28/2021 at 2:52 AM, steveoath said:

Toronto won't win the Stanley Cup. 

Not talking about them winning the Cup, talking about them playing playoff games outside of their division.

[PerreaultForever]

Guess this thread can get locked 🙂

 

[Stoner]

He played the puck not once but twice, then kicked the puck onto his stick before entering the crease.

Now lock it.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

He played the puck not once but twice, then kicked the puck onto his stick before entering the crease.

Now lock it.

Whatevs.

It wasn't a legal goal & you have admitted as much.  Enjoy your obfuscating.

[SwampD]

No way am I locking this.

This is the stuff of SS legend.

[Stoner]

A woman is entitled to change her mind.

I think everyone knows deep down it was a classic hockey goal and shouldn't have wiped out a Stanley Cup championship — nor should anyone want a Cup that results from that goal being waived off. We'd have the asterisk.

Listen — there was no clarification to fit the situation. The league had the clarifications to prevent good goals from being wiped out. The premise was in place. All Lewis did was modify the best clarification ("control") a little to allow a good hockey goal to survive ("possession"). As he said, "it was his puck to play and score."

GOAL.

Edited June 1, 2021 by PASabreFan

[Marvin]

Since we are rehashing 1999, I might as well state my position: They ignored every other rule in overtime, so why not that one too?

[#freejame]

10 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

A woman is entitled to change her mind.

I think everyone knows deep down it was a classic hockey goal and shouldn't have wiped out a Stanley Cup championship — nor should anyone want a Cup that results from that goal being waived off. We'd have the asterisk.

Listen — there was no clarification to fit the situation. The league had the clarifications to prevent good goals from being wiped out. The premise was in place. All Lewis did was modify the best clarification ("control") a little to allow a good hockey goal to survive ("possession"). As he said, "it was his puck to play and score."

GOAL.

Like Gretzky on the Blues with the two bolds—had it, lost it! It was, a good hockey goal. It wasn’t, at the time, a good NHL goal. If that goal happens in the second period, it gets reviewed and possibly overturned. It wasn’t even looked at, which for many is a large part of the issue. 

[thewookie1]

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

A woman is entitled to change her mind.

I think everyone knows deep down it was a classic hockey goal and shouldn't have wiped out a Stanley Cup championship — nor should anyone want a Cup that results from that goal being waived off. We'd have the asterisk.

Listen — there was no clarification to fit the situation. The league had the clarifications to prevent good goals from being wiped out. The premise was in place. All Lewis did was modify the best clarification ("control") a little to allow a good hockey goal to survive ("possession"). As he said, "it was his puck to play and score."

GOAL.

 

I'm sorry to say but this is one of the most asinine reasonings I ever read. I don't care if the rule was idiotic and the goal itself was well played; the goal shouldn't of counted. And I for one would of been fine winning a Cup that way just as much I doubt Dallas ever feels bad about having it fall their way.

Most of the evidence we have received over the years has been mostly from post-game news sources. This supposed fax clarifying/adjusting the rule being at the top of this chart; we have no verification or proof that it was sent league wide in January of 99 besides the league itself saying so. The fact that similar goals were disallowed well past January and into the playoffs is certainly evidence against that.

We all know the league screwed up with the lack of any review and had internally wanted the Stars to win to invigorate their entire Hockey-seeding the South plan. After seeing backlash they quickly sidestepped blame and created "reasons" why it should count. 

Just imagine how much pressure the NHL was under to solve this problem quickly; if they reviewed it and saw it should not of been a goal what exactly could they do after the fact? Have them replay Game 6 and perhaps a Game 7? Put asterisks around the win thus putting a bad look on the NHL and its officiating. To me, the most telling part is how the league abolished the rule that very offseason to thus avoid it ever happening again. The NHL could of fallen into the rabbit hole the "Tuck" rule would only a few years later plague their league and to this day cause great controversy league wide. Instead outside of Buffalo, rarely do general NHL fans mention the infamous crease goal besides Brett Hull who rubs it in our faces anytime he can. 

So to me it was all effectively a cover up to hide the fact that a terrible rule had quite literally decided the Cup winner. By siding with the "ruling on field" they avoided further controversy at the cost of Buffalo and its fans. Begs to question if this was why the NHL and Bettman have protected the Sabres from moving and have apologized on the situation years later multiple times. 

[Stoner]

18 hours ago, #freejame said:

Like Gretzky on the Blues with the two bolds—had it, lost it! It was, a good hockey goal. It wasn’t, at the time, a good NHL goal. If that goal happens in the second period, it gets reviewed and possibly overturned. It wasn’t even looked at, which for many is a large part of the issue. 

Bryan Lewis said he and the video goal judge reviewed it. Yes, it was quick, and there was no announcement. The referees stood by the boards as per protocol until they were released. I remember seeing a video of the aftermath of the goal where you could see the refs skating away. I timed it but can't remember how long after the goal the decision must have been called down to the ice. It was under a minute for sure. Remember, Hull's skate was clearly in the crease. The long reviews during the season involved looking at whether non-scorer's skates were in the crease. Thanks to the memo, Lewis could make a very quick call. In his mind anyway, it wasn't a tough one.

[Stoner]

18 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Most of the evidence we have received over the years has been mostly from post-game news sources. This supposed fax clarifying/adjusting the rule being at the top of this chart; we have no verification or proof that it was sent league wide in January of 99 besides the league itself saying so. The fact that similar goals were disallowed well past January and into the playoffs is certainly evidence against that.

Darcy told the AP a day or two after the game that the Sabres received the memo. Thorne and Clement talked about seeing it. I'd like to know about similar goals being disallowed after the memo, which was sent in March. If my memory serves me right, it was a goal involving the scorer being in the crease that was disallowed that led to the memo.

  

18 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

We all know the league screwed up with the lack of any review and had internally wanted the Stars to win to invigorate their entire Hockey-seeding the South plan. After seeing backlash they quickly sidestepped blame and created "reasons" why it should count.

I don't think we all know this. There was a review.

  

18 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

So to me it was all effectively a cover up to hide the fact that a terrible rule had quite literally decided the Cup winner. By siding with the "ruling on field" they avoided further controversy at the cost of Buffalo and its fans. Begs to question if this was why the NHL and Bettman have protected the Sabres from moving and have apologized on the situation years later multiple times. 

I never saw an apology. In fact Bettman went to Dallas and doubled-down. He even rode through the streets afterwards in an open limousine, quite confident.

[Thorner]

21 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Since we are rehashing 1999, I might as well state my position: They ignored every other rule in overtime, so why not that one too?

I'll concede you this argument when officials let one single solitary over-the-glass call go, in OT

[Marvin]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'll concede you this argument when officials let one single solitary over-the-glass call go, in OT

This was before that penalty -- or Darius Kasparaitis would have been penalised in game 7 against Buffalo in 2001.

[Wyldnwoody44]