Toronto Lost the North and Well Beaten SabreSpace Horses

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

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

My point was that there are certain rules they adhere to to the full level even in the playoffs, crease rule was closer to that I'd say. It had been called to a "T" the entire season just like the puck over glass rule 

18 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

When this franchise realizes it's the very act of prioritizing the "Cup" above all else, letting good be the enemy of great, that's holding them back, THEN we will start winning. 

[Taro T]

It took less than 10 seconds for the Zamboni doors to open after the puck entered the net.

THAT action, prompted by the NHL, is what set the chain of events in motion.  (And it WAS the league that sent the call down to open those doors.)

ANYONE claiming the goal had been reviewed by then has an agenda.

And anyone claiming it was better to have the DoO making the call, rather than the referees who were specifically given that role per the rulebook, is either disingenuous, has an agenda, or maybe both.  And the rulebook was clear, that call belonged to the refs.

And, though some might claim protocols were followed, the referees involved explicitly agreed that they weren't.  And the one who's call it was to make said he'd have ruled NO GOAL should the procedure have been followed and he allowed to make the call as was his duty.

And that result doesn't stand if the doors hadn't opened nor the chaos on the rink surface not ensued.  Regardless of whatever Brett Hull & others might tell you.

 

[Rasmus_]

At least the Sabres have never lost to a 42 year old Zamboni driver.  😄

[Taro T]

Gary Thorne "that goal should not have counted.  This is terrible."

[SwampD]

 

50 minutes ago, Taro T said:

It took less than 10 seconds for the Zamboni doors to open after the puck entered the net.

THAT action, prompted by the NHL, is what set the chain of events in motion.  (And it WAS the league that sent the call down to open those doors.)

ANYONE claiming the goal had been reviewed by then has an agenda.

And anyone claiming it was better to have the DoO making the call, rather than the referees who were specifically given that role per the rulebook, is either disingenuous, has an agenda, or maybe both.  And the rulebook was clear, that call belonged to the refs.

And, though some might claim protocols were followed, the referees involved explicitly agreed that they weren't.  And the one who's call it was to make said he'd have ruled NO GOAL should the procedure have been followed and he allowed to make the call as was his duty.

And that result doesn't stand if the doors hadn't opened nor the chaos on the rink surface not ensued.  Regardless of whatever Brett Hull & others might tell you.

 

I'm actually more upset about game 2 of that series.

Every single story that Kerry Fraser tells about his life as a ref just screams that he was an egotistical dickwad, completely biased ref that affected the outcomes of games simply because he felt like it. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff he admits to having done.

And I still want to know what Bettmen said to him at ice level in that intermission.

[Taro T]

And, what actually happened on the ice.

####in' Smehlik turns the puck over to Modano.  Modano chips the puck to Lehtonnen as Hull heads towards the crease with Holzinger in pursuit.  Lehtonnen takes a 1 timer that appears to be deflected by Hull outside the crease.

Hasek stops the shot & the rebound remains in the crease.  As Hasek is pushing the puck out of the crease, Hull enters the crease & takes a swipe at the puck & this is sneaks under Hasek's stick but is stopped by Hasek's glove as he sprawls.

Hull's stick is now in Hasek's glove as he misses the puck on the rebound & the puck leaves the crease.  Holzinger engages w/ Hull & Hull leaves the crease as the puck leaves the crease but before the puck has left the crease.

Holzinger now glances off Hull & begins to fall as he passes through the crease.  Both Hull & the rebounded puck are out of the crease.

Hull kicks the puck towards his stick (now cocking to reload & keeps the puck from Modano who tried to shoot the puck but did so too late to beat Hull's skate to the puck.  The ref adjusts his position & partially turns from the play to avoid Holzinger, the puck grazes the crease, & Hull's skate enters the crease.  The puck then fully clears the crease while Hull remains in the crease.

Hull now standing with 1 skate fully in the crease gains control of the puck which is now about 2' outside the crease & he shoots the puck into the net while he himself remains in the crease.

Where have we seen a similar description to this turn of events?  Might it have been in Clarification #10 of the "Mystery Memo?"

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."

What happened prior to Hull's swiping shot at the net is immaterial.  Everything from that point on meets that memo's description of the situation (nearly) precisely to a "tee" & the memo is quite clear on the result of the play.  RESULT: GOAL IS DISALLOWED.

And, while some claim that the ensuing non following of the process & procedures are immaterial; nothing could be further from the case.  Had reporters & Stars staff not been allowed on the ice IMMEDIATELY following the goal, then when the refs asked the VGJ if any Dallas players were in the crease prior to the puck entering the crease/net, they would have been told that was the case & the apparent goal would have been disallowed & the play would've resumed at the Sabres blue line to the left of Hasek.  Rather, when that question was asked, the response was that it was a good goal.  That was NOT an answer to the question that had actually been asked of the VGJ.

The ONLY reason why Lewis was said to have made the decision is that the league flat out didn't follow it's own written procedures & needed to come up with an excuse for how they'd decided the goal was good before the doors were opened.  They trotted out Clarification 9 to support their position even though you can read it for yourself upthread and realize it didn't describe the play that actually happened.

They also intentionally interchanged possession & control to obfuscate from those willing to be.

Teams retain possession until the other team gains possession.  DALLAS had possession the entire play since Modano intercepted ####in' Smehlik's attempted pass.  (His attempt at a pass off the faceoff is how Dallas co trolled the puck to enter the zone in the 1st place btw.)  But from the deflected shot they only gained control when Hull swiped at the 1st rebound & then once again as Hull shot the puck into the net.  (And under the rulebook then in force, control was only gained by a skater playing the puck with his stick.  No other body part playing the puck could confer control to that player.) 

Why do the distinction between control & possession matter?  Because if a player could be in the crease simply by "having possession" of the puck, he could stand in the crease regardless of where the puck was until some other player took possession by gaining control.  And Clarification 10 clearly states he couldn't do so until he had "regained" the puck.  (Regained being a term not defined in the rulebook btw.  But it's meaning per that clarification was so obvious even a (take your choice of term) could understand it.)

So, long story short: the above is why there was NO GOAL scored with 5:09 remaining in the 3rd OT on that late May night back in '99.  And also why Dallas didn't win the Stanley Cup, but rather were awarded it.  They'd earned the right to have an egregious error grant them the Cup, but didn't actually earn the Cup itself.  A non-trivial distinction IMHO, and 1 that should be maintained until the NHL admits they did the expedient thing rather than the right one, again, IMHO.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Taro T
Expedient, not expediency theory. Friggin' autocorrect.

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 

I'm actually more upset about game 2 of that series.

Every single story that Kerry Fraser tells about his life as a ref just screams that he was an egotistical dickwad, completely biased ref that affected the outcomes of games simply because he felt like it. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff he admits to having done.

And I still want to know what Bettmen said to him at ice level in that intermission.

Pretty sure you're thinking of Game 2 of the Caps series the prior year.  That was the 1st of 3 times in 3 years the league changed at least 1 rule because of the Sabres getting shafted in a playoff game in a series they didn't win.  Referees HAD to at least hear the advice of the VGJ on questionable goals, he couldn't just allow them by fiat after that.

The 3rd rule change was ALL potential goals had to be reviewed prior to dropping the puck again.  That happened in Filly when IIFC LeClair put the puck into the cage through a hole in the netting near the post.  (Hasek was standing there dumbfounded after it was in as he KNEW the shot was wide.  The ref didn't have the linesman recheck the mesh, unfortunately.  And the lazy schmuck in the review booth didn't bother to do his job.)

We all know the 2nd play that resulted in rule changes.  😉

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

My point was that there are certain rules they adhere to to the full level even in the playoffs, crease rule was closer to that I'd say. It had been called to a "T" the entire season just like the puck over glass rule

How many reviews akin to the Hull situation do you remember that season? I remember Varada or whoever on one side of the crease with a toe possibly on the line and the puck, shot by someone else, entering the crease on the other side. Those took a long time to figure out, given 1999 technology.

The league wanted goals like Hull's to count. They weren't smart enough to figure out how to put it in writing. Lewis knew that. He also knew the rule was going away after the season. He also knew the crease rule was a travesty. On that fateful morn, he got to be judge, jury, executioner and keeper of the integrity of the Stanley Cup. He did his job well.

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

How many reviews akin to the Hull situation do you remember that season? I remember Varada or whoever on one side of the crease with a toe possibly on the line and the puck, shot by someone else, entering the crease on the other side. Those took a long time to figure out, given 1999 technology.

The league wanted goals like Hull's to count. They weren't smart enough to figure out how to put it in writing. Lewis knew that. He also knew the rule was going away after the season. He also knew the crease rule was a travesty. On that fateful morn, he got to be judge, jury, executioner and keeper of the integrity of the Stanley Cup. He did his job well.

Oh, brother.

I remember when classically great head hits at center ice were legal, too,... until they weren’t.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

How many reviews akin to the Hull situation do you remember that season? I remember Varada or whoever on one side of the crease with a toe possibly on the line and the puck, shot by someone else, entering the crease on the other side. Those took a long time to figure out, given 1999 technology.

The league wanted goals like Hull's to count. They weren't smart enough to figure out how to put it in writing. Lewis knew that. He also knew the rule was going away after the season. He also knew the crease rule was a travesty. On that fateful morn, he got to be judge, jury, executioner and keeper of the integrity of the Stanley Cup. He did his job well.

Ah, so Lewis is Batman

[Stoner]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ah, so Lewis is Batman

I don't really get the reference, but I suppose so. It's fascinating to think of the situation Lewis found himself in after a lifetime in the sport. Focus on the humanity of it and not bureaucratic protocols, the idea that the director of officiating, THE BIG BOSS, was supposed to sit by and watch Charlie Banfield provide information to the ref with zero context ("his skate was in the crease before the puck") and watch a Cup winning-goal get erased. You can't tell me when it came to the memo clarifications that's how the call was supposed to be made. Someone had to interpret that wording. And that should be the guy who wrote it. Turns out he got it wrong, but only because a clarification that should have been in the memo was understandably not imagined. Lewis' legacy was on the line, and he knew it. How did that turn out for him?

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I don't really get the reference, but I suppose so. It's fascinating to think of the situation Lewis found himself in after a lifetime in the sport. Focus on the humanity of it and not bureaucratic protocols, the idea that the director of officiating, THE BIG BOSS, was supposed to sit by and watch Charlie Banfield provide information to the ref with zero context ("his skate was in the crease before the puck") and watch a Cup winning-goal get erased. You can't tell me when it came to the memo clarifications that's how the call was supposed to be made. Someone had to interpret that wording. And that should be the guy who wrote it. Turns out he got it wrong, but only because a clarification that should have been in the memo was understandably not imagined. Lewis' legacy was on the line, and he knew it. How did that turn out for him?

Well, Batman operates where the law cannot. The way Taro explains it, by the letter of the law, it shouldn't have been a goal. My inference from what you said was that you think, regardless of what the rule actually stated, Lewis did the right thing. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

How many reviews akin to the Hull situation do you remember that season? I remember Varada or whoever on one side of the crease with a toe possibly on the line and the puck, shot by someone else, entering the crease on the other side. Those took a long time to figure out, given 1999 technology.

The league wanted goals like Hull's to count. They weren't smart enough to figure out how to put it in writing. Lewis knew that. He also knew the rule was going away after the season. He also knew the crease rule was a travesty. On that fateful morn, he got to be judge, jury, executioner and keeper of the integrity of the Stanley Cup. He did his job well.

To the 1st bolded, it is very impressive that you claim people can't possibly understand the intent of the league based upon what they have actually written down in the rule book and in written clarifications to the rule book, but yet you have the capability to devine what they want based on events that occurred AFTER someone within the league told the crew to prematurely open the Zamboni doors releasing the media hounds into their feeding frenzy.

It further strains credulity to have you claim that the league wanted this particular type of goal to count when the Clarification most consistent with the play (shooter enters crease as rebound leaves crease, shooter still in crease gains control & puts puck into the net) says the league DIDN'T want that play to result in a goal.  Remember, the whole reason for putting this poorly thoughout rule into the books a season earlier was to protect goalies.  Letting shooters crash the net even after the puck is out of the crease & then score while still being in the crease early is in the spirit of the EXACT sort of play the league was looking to eliminate with the original rule.

 

And below is a transcript of the aftermath of the coverage on ESPN starting about 20 minutes after the game was halted.

 

Clement:  "Our overhead is pretty conclusive.  There is Brett Hull's left foot clearly in the crease.  The puck is out of the crease and he whacked it home.

Thorne:  "That goal should not have counted under the rule."  "That overhead shot makes this clear.  This is terrible.  I mean this is really terrible.  That a game would end like this."  ... "We believe no one has called down to say that anyone was in the crease.  But that shot, he was in the crease."

Clement: "He absolutely was in the crease."

Thorne: "And the puck was not there."

Clement: "Correct."

Thorne: "And the rule says, if that's the case, the goals do not count." 

A bit later ...

Thorne:  "This of course is the rule that has been the subject of enormous controversy.  Enormous controversy.  ...  All year long in this game everyone has said this rule doesn't work.  It's gotta be changed and there has been a discussion that it would be changed somehow for next year.  BUT, the rule for this game was if you are in the crease ahead of the puck the goal doesn't count."

Clement:   "Well, the general managers met as recently as 4 days ago right here in Buffalo and, and, heartedly debated the issue of video replay and being in the crease, etc. "

Thorne:  "This is the worst nightmare the National Hockey League could have thought of to end this game.  It's a nightmare.  It's a nightmare because it is clear from the video you saw it that goal should not have counted."

Clement:  "The nightmare may just be unfolding now."

Thorne:  "Yep.  We're gonna show it to you again."

...  

Thorne:  "We want to show you the point, I mean the point in the replay right here.  See the puck is clearly outside of the crease and a skate is in."

Clement:  "Yeah, and uh, well yeah, I mean it's clearly outside 9f the crease & Brett Hull's skate is clearly in the crease.  Had the puck stayed in the crease somebody might have been able to make a point that Brett Hull followed the puck into the crease which is allowable."

...

Thorne:  "So the rule that everyone complained of all year has come to haunt the National Hockey League at the worst possible moment. And unless, now unless there is some other explanation, but there's nothing we can, I mean we only have what we saw."

Clement:  "Right."

Thorne:  "And we know that nobody could have called down or the referees would have held it up.  But that  didn't happen.  They're celebrating the Stanley Cup" ...

Thorne:  "We are trying to get a word from someone, obviously Bryan Lewis Supervisor of Officials is here."  ...  "We believe that league officials went into the locker room to talk to Lindy Tuff at least, and the ownership I'm sure to talk to the Buffalo Sabres about why the goal was allowed in light of what you saw."

...

Thorne:  "But you saw what happened and the league now has got to answer.  What are you going to say in light of the video and in light of the rule.  And that's what we want to give you before we leave so that you know what, uh, the league officials are saying after what we showed you."

Clement:  "Boy, unless it is a tight, clean, iron clad explanation it is going to be one huge difficult pill for the Buffalo Sabres to swallow."

...

Pang:  "... Bryan Lewis did say under the rules that Brett Hull, yes indeed he was in the crease but because it was him that had possession of the puck with his skate inside the crease and then still had possession of the puck outside the crease he was the player that was able to score the goal on Dominic Hasek.  That is what he explained to the Buffa.o Sabres and what he is explaining to everybody else right now."  (Editor's note: as explained above, Hull did have possession, but he didn't have control so the clarification spouted by Lewis was the wrong 1 and he was ,Ying then as be still lies about it to this day.)

...

Clement:  "Welp, there may be some validity to that explanation.  As long as you can make the point that Brett Hull has control of the puck, he's allowed to have control of the puck with his skate in the crease."  (Editor's note, in his best Ron Howard voice: you can't.)  "I'm, I'm hoping that that can be reprinted for the entire world to see, so that this is not an issue.  Nobody needs this to be an issue." ... (Editor's note, again in his best Ron Howard voice: this explanation was published, which is why this IS an issue.)

Thorne: "And I think I, I, saw in the officials' book Bryan Lewis Bill earlier in the playoff year gave me a copy of some of the instructions that go to the refs as the season goes along; there was that thing about a player controlling the puck taking it in, taking it out and then scoring and there is a rule, uhhhhh, really an explanation of the rule that says those count."  (Editor's note:  once again, Lewis is conflating the clarifications to pretend they made the right call when they made the expedient one.).

 

To the 2nd bolded, do you HONESTLY think he did his job well that night?  If you believe his job was to be the pointman to cover up their original screw-up of letting reporters onto the ice prior to having determined the goal was good, you might be onto something.  He's even been retired for 21 years and still sticks to that fallacious story.

But, if you think he did a good job of allowing his subordinates to do their jobs as written, no, he didn't do that well as he usurped the authority they'd been delegated.

As you've also admitted elsewhere here in this very thread, he didn't get the call right, so no that can't be what he did well.

Did he save the league from more embarrassment than it would've faced had they pulled the reporters off the ice?  Ymmv, but wouldn't say he hit on that count either.

So, other than agreeing to be the fall guy, what exactly did he do well?

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Taro T

[Weave]

Hey, guys.  Thread’s over.  Toronto aint winning the North.

[SwampD]

36 minutes ago, Weave said:

Hey, guys.  Thread’s over.  Toronto aint winning the North.

Kinda felt like this thread was just getting started.

[FogBat]

On 6/1/2021 at 11:51 AM, Taro T said:

Whatevs.

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

 

On 6/1/2021 at 1:56 PM, 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.

 

[FogBat]

11 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Sure. An athletic cup that has some dude's name on it so that way he's protected from a flying puck hitting him square in the squirrel's stash of nuts.

[Stoner]

18 hours ago, Thorny said:

Well, Batman operates where the law cannot. The way Taro explains it, by the letter of the law, it shouldn't have been a goal. My inference from what you said was that you think, regardless of what the rule actually stated, Lewis did the right thing. 

I'd go with just.

Let's imagine the Sabres score the same goal at the other end, leading the series 3-2, to seemingly win the Cup. The goal is taken off the board, and Dallas prevails in 7. Sabres fans study the memo, which comes precariously close to allowing Holzinger's goal, then watch as the league gets rid of the rule, learning that meetings IN BUFFALO during the final sealed the deal for the crease rule.

Can you imagine?

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'd go with just.

Let's imagine the Sabres score the same goal at the other end, leading the series 3-2, to seemingly win the Cup. The goal is taken off the board, and Dallas prevails in 7. Sabres fans study the memo, which comes precariously close to allowing Holzinger's goal, then watch as the league gets rid of the rule, learning that meetings IN BUFFALO during the final sealed the deal for the crease rule.

Can you imagine?

This is poignant enough, I actually think a logical case can be made from either side. In striving for objectivity though, I think you have to go with the letter of the law at the time as written - that's the side my brain comes down on. Would I feel that way under your scenario? I hope so.

 

I try to hold myself to a consistency - my recent posts include stating the NHL should go by the book in the playoffs in enforcing penalties, and I've stated Mark Scheifele should be suspended because the rules say that type of hit is not allowed, he did it, and someone got seriously injured. I think there's a consistency there but like I said, you situation as proposed would be a powerful, challenging context

Edited June 3, 2021 by Thorny

[Taro T]

19 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'd go with just.

Let's imagine the Sabres score the same goal at the other end, leading the series 3-2, to seemingly win the Cup. The goal is taken off the board, and Dallas prevails in 7. Sabres fans study the memo, which comes precariously close to allowing Holzinger's goal, then watch as the league gets rid of the rule, learning that meetings IN BUFFALO during the final sealed the deal for the crease rule.

Can you imagine?

Keep twisting.  Maybe, just maybe, you'll convince yourself that the league was right to disregard the rules & procedures it had in place at the time.  It'll be just you that you convince, but it is entertaining watching you do your turns.

TMB - LDV T8-9

 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Keep twisting.  Maybe, just maybe, you'll convince yourself that the league was right to disregard the rules & procedures it had in place at the time.  It'll be just you that you convince, but it is entertaining watching you do your turns.

TMB - LDV T8-9

 

Skeptical what? I came down on your side! 😜

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Skeptical what? I came down on your side! 😜

His hypothetical assumes that the people running the league would have integrity, which they clearly lacked.

In order for the situation to be reversed and have the goal waived off you need at least 1 of 2 assumptions to be true (and from how events actually played out, we know neither would happen):

1. The league would ignore the wishes of ESPN & CBC to get back to commercial airing programs ASAP and wait until the play was reviewed to require the rink crew to allow reporters onto the ice; or

2. The league would have the reporters ushered off the ice to resume the game once the VGJ explained what had occurred on the ice to the refs and the apparent goal subsequently disallowed by the refs.

We know neither of these would happen because we'd still have the same people given the same information in the same situation but only the sweater colors would be reversed.

 

He also conveniently neglects that the clarification which comes "perilously close to allowing Holzinger's goal" doesn't come close to being the most representative clarification; clarification 10 is significantly closer & it nearly nails the play and it also unfortunately disallows that mythical Zinger goal.

Or, is the play itself also significantly different and the hypothetical he's proposing is one where clarification 9 (or some other goal allowing clarification) should be governing but they went with a goal disallowing clarification instead?  Which, due to the league's already displayed expediency would never happen.  If everybody believed it was a goal momentarily and the proverbial hounds were released, there would be no subsequent reversal.  (Especially when it appears from the setup that the goal actually should count.)  They're OK with being wrong, they aren't OK with being embarrassed.  That scenario gets them both.  Not happening, even in the confined spaces of an overactive mind.

 

Either way, it IS entertaining but hardly convincing.  Surprised you were considering it.  

 

PS - Every single person that followed the NHL knew the rule would be modified at a minimum over the summer.  Proposing that the knowledge that the rule was eliminated afterwards in the hypothetical would make the whole thing even more painful is merely another distraction.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

His hypothetical assumes that the people running the league would have integrity, which they clearly lacked.

In order for the situation to be reversed and have the goal waived off you need at least 1 of 2 assumptions to be true (and from how events actually played out, we know neither would happen):

1. The league would ignore the wishes of ESPN & CBC to get back to commercial airing programs ASAP and wait until the play was reviewed to require the rink crew to allow reporters onto the ice; or

2. The league would have the reporters ushered off the ice to resume the game once the VGJ explained what had occurred on the ice to the refs and the apparent goal subsequently disallowed by the refs.

We know neither of these would happen because we'd still have the same people given the same information in the same situation but only the sweater colors would be reversed.

 

He also conveniently neglects that the clarification which comes "perilously close to allowing Holzinger's goal" doesn't come close to being the most representative clarification; clarification 10 is significantly closer & it nearly nails the play and it also unfortunately disallows that mythical Zinger goal.

Or, is the play itself also significantly different and the hypothetical he's proposing is one where clarification 9 (or some other goal allowing clarification) should be governing but they went with a goal disallowing clarification instead?  Which, due to the league's already displayed expediency would never happen.  If everybody believed it was a goal momentarily and the proverbial hounds were released, there would be no subsequent reversal.  (Especially when it appears from the setup that the goal actually should count.)  They're OK with being wrong, they aren't OK with being embarrassed.  That scenario gets them both.  Not happening, even in the confined spaces of an overactive mind.

 

Either way, it IS entertaining but hardly convincing.  Surprised you were considering it.  

 

PS - Every single person that followed the NHL knew the rule would be modified at a minimum over the summer.  Proposing that the knowledge that the rule was eliminated afterwards in the hypothetical would make the whole thing even more painful is merely another distraction.

It's not that I think the result would have been different if the roles were reversed, I was just weighing the possibility internally of if my opinion would be different under the scenario he laid out - I think it wouldn't, but it's worth considering and it's always important to check for that bias. It's always hard to say how much my view is impacted specifically by Sabres leanings

Edited June 3, 2021 by Thorny

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Skeptical what? I came down on your side! 😜

You have to understand, it's Taro's way or the highway. He knows the intricacies of the rule book in 1999, the definition of control (both the legalistic definition and how it was practically applied by the refs), review procedures in place at the time (including the procedures for considering the clarifications in the memo), what league staff was in the building and who did what and why, who ordered the Zamboni doors to open, the mindset of the league staff and how they lied and then covered it up, and so on. The width and breadth and depth of His understanding is remarkable, almost God-like.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Keep twisting.  Maybe, just maybe, you'll convince yourself that the league was right to disregard the rules & procedures it had in place at the time.  It'll be just you that you convince, but it is entertaining watching you do your turns.

TMB - LDV T8-9

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I have no agenda. Do you? You're one who keeps bringing it up, using the loaded word "awarded."

It is entertaining, I'll give you that. Halfway through another of your epic cold and clinical breakdowns of why the call was wrong, it hit me: this can't be what sports is about. I'm now considering the human side of it. How Bryan Lewis handled the situation is pretty fascinating. Unfortunately, neither one of us can be in his head to know the truth, and as far as I know, he ain't talking. Maybe there'll be a deathbed statement.

Rosegoal.

What did he say? No goal? Rosegoal? He belongs to the angels? The ages? The aged?