Toronto Lost the North and Well Beaten SabreSpace Horses

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm not interested in the same old same old (I've heard Taro's account dozens of times; it's the wrinkles that are interesting, but unfortunately he won't commit to them when they are read back to him).

I'm kind of interested in how an old man still working in officiating still thinks he got the call right. I see something to really ponder; I'm sure Taro sees the same NHL hack he saw 22 years ago instead of a decent and honorable official. But, seriously, doesn't it make you wonder?

I'll say this as an oddball explanation. I only read two of the clarifications as presented by Budd Bailey in his blog (9 and 10). Budd did not cover himself in glory with his understanding of the situation. What if a missing clarification fit the bill? What if Budd got the text of the memo from someone inside the Sabres who changed the wording?

Bryan Lewis is taking possession or possession and control to his grave.

I remember videos where he said the situation from earlier that season were "just like that goal."  He was lampooned multiple times at the NHL awards that year for the examples which were nothing like the call as well as all the other calls which were much more like the Hull goal which were overturned.  (IIRC, someone came up with a less egregious situation like Hull/s which WAS overturned earlier in the playoffs.)  Dallas players and many NHL execs were very uncomfortable with the unrelenting stream of gags.

Lewis can say what he wants.  It is straight-up situational ethics.  As someone who can't abide anyone saying anything non-inflammatorily derogatory about the Pegulas, I have to ask why you are upset with what you think are Pegula's situational ethics but are fine with Bryan Lewis's?

[Thorner]

16 hours ago, dudacek said:

From an anonymous NHL executive to Pierre Lebrun on what the Leafs need to change.

If you speak to senior people they will quietly tell you they have concerns about the Leafs’ philosophy of: Focusing only on high octane offense with the belief that if you outscore everyone you will win. It seems they would rather beat you 6-5 than 2-1 and we all know that’s not how you succeed in the playoffs. And, reduce their myopic obsession with analytics as being the defacto decision maker. Analytics are important but should only be one of several criteria evaluated in every decision. Both publicly and privately people know that analytics has a disproportionate influence and makes all the player personnel decisions.

They've already proven they don't adhere THAT closely to analytics with some of the signings they've made. That anonymous source has a bone to pick, me thinks. 

[FogBat]

On 6/3/2021 at 11:39 AM, Thorny said:

His encyclopedic knowledge and attention to detail combined with the considerable sway that infuses your arguments (that always appeal to the Human) has made this back and forth super compelling. You guys need to find something else to argue about on the side - i've learned a lot so far 

Like how to best dissect an amoeba right down to the last millimicron?

[Stoner]

4 hours ago, Crosschecking said:

Like how to best dissect an amoeba right down to the last millimicron?

Everybody knows you use the next to last setting on the microscope dial. Duh.

[Stoner]

15 hours ago, SwampD said:

 

So even now, while explaining why he got the call right, he is telling us that he got it wrong?

Priceless.

Don't you find that curious? It's beyond frustrating that Vogl got Lewis to talk about no goal and didn't ask the right question. But that's Buffalo-level sports "journalism" for ya. We leave ever Sabres presser wishing the reporters had been smart.

By the way, one can email Lewis through his town council website. I am certain any question about No Goal would be sent to the same circular file that my request for the clarification memo from the NHL ended up in. It might be worth a shot. He seems willing to discuss it.

[FogBat]

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Everybody knows you use the next to last setting on the microscope dial. Duh.

Ok boomer

[Stoner]

Are we down to final summary of positions?

I could talk and debate No Goal forever. I find the technical side and the human side fascinating. I'd rather be me, and think about it from different angles, and even change my mind, than to be unchanging Taro — especially when he thinks he possesses The Truth when he doesn't and anyone who disagrees has an agenda, is trolling or is deranged.

Anyway:

1. I don't remember ever being outraged or even miffed at the call at the time. It was a hockey goal. Common sense kicks in. To this day, Sabres fans don't talk as much about the goal being illegal as much as they allege that the goal wasn't reviewed and the memo was fabricated. I always figured it was better to let Dallas have a big asterisk next to their Cup than to have that happen to the Sabres. (And it would have.) Besides, we'd only have to wait seven years to have our own Cup. It did feel like we'd have more shots at glory with Dom in goal.

2. When good old SabreSpace came along, by then, I was able to argue that the right call had been made, because I thought Hull controlled the puck before entering the crease. That opinion changed on or about the 10th anniversary of the goal when two of the memo clarifications were published. The memo talked about a player having to MAINTAIN control before entering the crease (stickhandling, for example). Hull's momentary action couldn't be considered maintaining control. (Taro can relax; my only point about the definition of control not mattering was that the idea of control was disqualified before you even got to the definition of it, because control was not maintained under any definition.)

3. So the idea of how it all went down, and why, became the source of debate, as T2 and I were in agreement on the rule. I really shouldn't say he has been unchanging in his position. There have been many variations of the how and why, from the more innocent "expediency" of late to serious undertones of conspiracy. The idea of the Cup being "awarded" has always gotten my goat. It's just not fair to the Stars. And I don't think it's what happened. Lewis thought he had the right call. There was no decision to "just give it to 'em!" It was a bad call.

4. Or... Lewis made the right call for a terrible situation, clothed in his immense Lincolnesque powers as director of officiating. I'd like our legal eagles to chime in on whether Lewis would have been justified to take the spirit of the clarification memo and liberally apply it to a new and unanticipated situation (the "Oh, crap, that should have been included" theory).

5. Lewis as a toady who continues to lie to this day and the league as corrupt cover-uppers also doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to believe it about Lewis, and I can't believe it about the league, because if it's true I really can't be fan. I swim lavishly and blithely in the river denial. The weakest part of Taro's theory (and it's theory, not fact) is that the coverup included changing the definition of control (how that would cover anything up is beyond me) and getting rid of the crease rule (it was already pre-funct before No Goal). Things like someone opening up a Zamboni door at the request of the league, waiting 20 minutes to talk to the Sabres, Bettman turning away from Lindy and Peca, don't amount to a hill of beans. (And, probably most importantly, he doesn't know what the procedures were for reviewing a goal that touched on those clarifications. Was it the DOI's call? To say the video judge should have merely told the ref the skate was in the crease ahead of the puck doesn't make sense. Was the video judge to talk to the ref about the clarification while the author of the clarification picked his nose? I have no idea. I do know you can't look it up in any rulebook, because the memo came out in March.)

6. I don't think I have a 6. Taro, my brother in Sabrehood, all I wish is that someday something happens to wipe this debate out of our brains for good.

You had your final say and I had mine. I don't think any more, at the moment, would be good for our respective mental healths.

Edited June 5, 2021 by PASabreFan

[Eleven]

It was a mistake to fire Lindy Ruff.

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Eleven

[SwampD]

13 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Are we down to final summary of positions?

I could talk and debate No Goal forever. I find the technical side and the human side fascinating. I'd rather be me, and think about it from different angles, and even change my mind, than to be unchanging Taro — especially when he thinks he possesses The Truth when he doesn't and anyone who disagrees has an agenda, is trolling or is deranged.

Anyway:

1. I don't remember ever being outraged or even miffed at the call at the time. It was a hockey goal. Common sense kicks in. To this day, Sabres fans don't talk as much about the goal being illegal as much as they allege that the goal wasn't reviewed and the memo was fabricated. I always figured it was better to let Dallas have a big asterisk next to their Cup than to have that happen to the Sabres. (And it would have.) Besides, we'd only have to wait seven years to have our own Cup. It did feel like we'd have more shots at glory with Dom in goal.

2. When good old SabreSpace came along, by then, I was able to argue that the right call had been made, because I thought Hull controlled the puck before entering the crease. That opinion changed on or about the 10th anniversary of the goal when two of the memo clarifications were published. The memo talked about a player having to MAINTAIN control before entering the crease (stickhandling, for example). Hull's momentary action couldn't be considered maintaining control. (Taro can relax; my only point about the definition of control not mattering was that the idea of control was disqualified before you even got to the definition of it, because control was not maintained under any definition.)

3. So the idea of how it all went down, and why, became the source of debate, as T2 and I were in agreement on the rule. I really shouldn't say he has been unchanging in his position. There have been many variations of the how and why, from the more innocent "expediency" of late to serious undertones of conspiracy. The idea of the Cup being "awarded" has always gotten my goat. It's just not fair to the Stars. And I don't think it's what happened. Lewis thought he had the right call. There was no decision to "just give it to 'em!" It was a bad call.

4. Or... Lewis made the right call for a terrible situation, clothed in his immense Lincolnesque powers as director of officiating. I'd like our legal eagles to chime in on whether Lewis would have been justified to take the spirit of the clarification memo and liberally apply it to a new and unanticipated situation (the "Oh, crap, that should have been included" theory).

5. Lewis as a toady who continues to lie to this day and the league as corrupt cover-uppers also doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to believe it about Lewis, and I can't believe it about the league, because if it's true I really can't be fan. I swim lavishly and blithely in the river denial. The weakest part of Taro's theory (and it's theory, not fact) is that the coverup included changing the definition of control (how that would cover anything up is beyond me) and getting rid of the crease rule (it was already pre-funct before No Goal). Things like someone opening up a Zamboni door at the request of the league, waiting 20 minutes to talk to the Sabres, Bettman turning away from Lindy and Peca, don't amount to a hill of beans. (And, probably most importantly, he doesn't know what the procedures were for reviewing a goal that touched on those clarifications. Was it the DOI's call? To say the video judge should have merely told the ref the skate was in the crease ahead of the puck doesn't make sense. Was the video judge to talk to the ref about the clarification while the author of the clarification picked his nose? I have no idea. I do know you can't look it up in any rulebook, because the memo came out in March.)

6. I don't think I have a 6. Taro, my brother in Sabrehood, all I wish is that someday something happens to wipe this debate out of our brains for good.

You had your final say and I had mine. I don't think any more, at the moment, would be good for our respective mental healths.

On 6. Is there really a debate? You both agree the goal should not have counted as per the rules of the day.

You are fine with them getting it wrong (for reasons) and Taro isn’t.

It is a little curious to me, though, for someone who parses the rulebook as often as you do.

...and Lindy had to go.

[Weave]

21 minutes ago, Eleven said:

It was a mistake to fire Lindy Ruff.

 

Whatever, boomer.  😁

[Zamboni]

Well since we’re making fun declarative statements today…

No goal. 

Glad Lindy was let go. At that time, most fans agreed it was time. Same with Darcy.

And I’ll just throw in, Leafs fans tears are still as delicious as ever. I look forward to a tall glass every spring.

[Eleven]

Drew Stafford was awesome.

[Huckleberry]

4 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Drew Stafford was awesome.

We have had better right wings in the last 20 years ? 😛

[Sabres Fan in NS]

3 hours ago, Eleven said:

Drew Stafford was awesome.

He did fight that guy that one time there.  Kind of.

He did have that scar thing going for him.  Kind of.

[SwampD]

"Mouse potatoes" was kinda clever.

[Taro T]

11 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Are we down to final summary of positions?

I could talk and debate No Goal forever. I find the technical side and the human side fascinating. I'd rather be me, and think about it from different angles, and even change my mind, than to be unchanging Taro — especially when he thinks he possesses The Truth when he doesn't and anyone who disagrees has an agenda, is trolling or is deranged.

Anyway:

1. I don't remember ever being outraged or even miffed at the call at the time. It was a hockey goal. Common sense kicks in. To this day, Sabres fans don't talk as much about the goal being illegal as much as they allege that the goal wasn't reviewed and the memo was fabricated. I always figured it was better to let Dallas have a big asterisk next to their Cup than to have that happen to the Sabres. (And it would have.) Besides, we'd only have to wait seven years to have our own Cup. It did feel like we'd have more shots at glory with Dom in goal.

2. When good old SabreSpace came along, by then, I was able to argue that the right call had been made, because I thought Hull controlled the puck before entering the crease. That opinion changed on or about the 10th anniversary of the goal when two of the memo clarifications were published. The memo talked about a player having to MAINTAIN control before entering the crease (stickhandling, for example). Hull's momentary action couldn't be considered maintaining control. (Taro can relax; my only point about the definition of control not mattering was that the idea of control was disqualified before you even got to the definition of it, because control was not maintained under any definition.)

3. So the idea of how it all went down, and why, became the source of debate, as T2 and I were in agreement on the rule. I really shouldn't say he has been unchanging in his position. There have been many variations of the how and why, from the more innocent "expediency" of late to serious undertones of conspiracy. The idea of the Cup being "awarded" has always gotten my goat. It's just not fair to the Stars. And I don't think it's what happened. Lewis thought he had the right call. There was no decision to "just give it to 'em!" It was a bad call.

4. Or... Lewis made the right call for a terrible situation, clothed in his immense Lincolnesque powers as director of officiating. I'd like our legal eagles to chime in on whether Lewis would have been justified to take the spirit of the clarification memo and liberally apply it to a new and unanticipated situation (the "Oh, crap, that should have been included" theory).

5. Lewis as a toady who continues to lie to this day and the league as corrupt cover-uppers also doesn't sit well with me. I don't want to believe it about Lewis, and I can't believe it about the league, because if it's true I really can't be fan. I swim lavishly and blithely in the river denial. The weakest part of Taro's theory (and it's theory, not fact) is that the coverup included changing the definition of control (how that would cover anything up is beyond me) and getting rid of the crease rule (it was already pre-funct before No Goal). Things like someone opening up a Zamboni door at the request of the league, waiting 20 minutes to talk to the Sabres, Bettman turning away from Lindy and Peca, don't amount to a hill of beans. (And, probably most importantly, he doesn't know what the procedures were for reviewing a goal that touched on those clarifications. Was it the DOI's call? To say the video judge should have merely told the ref the skate was in the crease ahead of the puck doesn't make sense. Was the video judge to talk to the ref about the clarification while the author of the clarification picked his nose? I have no idea. I do know you can't look it up in any rulebook, because the memo came out in March.)

6. I don't think I have a 6. Taro, my brother in Sabrehood, all I wish is that someday something happens to wipe this debate out of our brains for good.

You had your final say and I had mine. I don't think any more, at the moment, would be good for our respective mental healths.

The bolded is not accurate.  It isn't why you stated you came around to (at least temporarily) renounce the dark side back of the play back when you did so sometime around ~2010.

It wasn't the memo clarifications that turned you.  Those both had been produced publicly back in the fall of '99.  It was your finding online a copy of the '98 rulebook (the one in effect for the '98-'99 season) that included the original version of control exactly where you'd been told it would be & with it saying exactly what you were told it did.  After you could see the definition yourself (my having printed it out at least twice & what seemed like 6 or so times never swayed you, & in fact you always acted like that was something that yours truly made up) you finally accepted (however reluctantly) the truth.

Remember, "control of the puck" had been changed from "means the act of propelling the puck with the stick" to "means the act of propelling the puck with the stick, hands, or feet."  Both the original definition & the new one continue on: "If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal, or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be in control of the puck."

It was a change that PRECISELY put Hull's action into the act of controlling the puck while he was still out of the crease, and thus allowing what happened to be legal WERE THAT to have actually been the rule at the time.  Unfortunately for him, it wasn't.

You continue to attempt to minimize how integral the definition of control is to all of this.  READ what the definition was and what it became.  Had the new version been in place, the play would have resulted in a good goal.  It wasn't and the play didn't. 

That change was highly effective in getting people to believe their narrative about that fateful night.  You won't convince me it wasn't intentional.  (Appears you won't be convinced it was, so let's drop that.  PLEASE.)  That change is what kept YOU from believing the play did not result in a legit goal.  There is absolutely no way you were the only person duped by that change.

 

And it is SIGNIFICANT revisionist history to claim we were in agreement on the rule.  That only came about after ~4 years of you claiming the goal was good and being provided a ton of evidence as to why it wasn't.  (I provided far more detail about this in the past than in this thread, but I have wasted FAR MORE of my precious time both then and now to produce it all again.  Maybe somebody can get lucky with the d*mn search function and pull it all up again.  But really don't intend to do it again.)     You can try to cloud this into being about the aftermath, but from my perspective it has ALWAYS been about whether the play should've resulted in a legit goal - it shouldn't have, btw.  Even in this thread, somewhere upstream you claim to have changed your mind back to it having been called the right way.

You've said it explicitly above, it is important to you that this not be a CYA (and a poor 1 at that) by the league.  Quote: "I can't believe it about the league, because if it's true I really can't be fan."  Won't go bursting your bubble, but ...

 

[Taro T]

And, what would hopefully be my final post on this subject, but probably won't; thanks PA.

The play:  

And, what actually happened on the ice.  (Go find a video of it on YouTube to satisfy yourself that the following description is accurate.)

####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 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, snagging Hasek's glove with his skate in the process.  Both Hull & the rebounded puck are out of the crease.

Hull kicks the puck towards his stick (now cocking to reload effectively keeping 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.

The rule in place at the time:

78.b. Protection of Goalkeeper:  Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease.  If the puck should enter the net while such provisions prevail the goal shall not be allowed.  If the attacking player has physically interfered with the goalkeeper, prior to or during the scoring of the goal, the goal will be disallowed and a penalty for goalkeeper interference will be assessed.  The ensuing face-off shall be taken in the neutral zone at the face-off spot nearest the attacking zone of the offending Team.

 

The clarification governing the situation per the league:

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."

The clarification describing the situation most closely resembling the actual play:

Clarification 10:  "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."

 

Important background necessary to interpret the play & ruling:

Definition of "possession:"

67.  Interference - Note 2 Pessession of the Puck:  

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession.  The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

 

Definition of "control:"

91.b. Tripping:  Note 4 2nd Paragraph: "Control of the puck" means the the act of propelling the puck with the stick.  If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal, or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be in control of the puck."

Aside:  "Possession & Control" are both used together in at minimum 2 separate places Rule 67. Interference and also Rule 33.b. Calling of Penalties.  They are not interchangeable terms.  The term "recovers" does not appear in the rulebook but clearly is intended to mean "regains control" as per the definition, a shooter does not cede "possession" merely because the puck was touched by the goalkeeper.

 

And the last rule for additional informational purposes:

93.h. Video Goal Judge:

Only at the request of the Referee, to establish if an attacking player was in the crease at the time the puck entered the goal.  The Video Goal Judge is to advise the Referee of the position of the attacking player when the puck entered the crease and/or goal.

 

The VGJ only ADVISED the Referee of the location of the puck & the attacking player.  It wasn't his job to make a call of a good goal in that situation & it certainly wasn't his boss' call to make either.

 

Posted quotes from Lewis and the refs and other players in this drama years ago.  Maybe the search function will find them.  They all support 1 conclusion: NO GOAL.

Why'd the league refuse to follow it's procedures after the flood of reporters came onto the ice prior to reviewing the play and seeing a legal goal had not been scored and then subsequently not allowing the refs to know Hull was in the crease prior to gaining control of the puck & bringing it into the crease and thus not allowing them to do their job in the moment?  We'll leave that for the reader to decide. 

Whatever the reason, the result remains: the Dallas Stars were awarded the Stanley Cup in the wee hours of June 20, 1999 by Gary Bettman in Buffalo, NY.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Taro T
Fixed typo: 'good' not 'hood'

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Why am I wishing that the summer was over already?

It's not even officially started yet.