This Day in Sabres History: November 3

[Stoner]

November 3, 1999

 

It's a rematch of the Stanley Cup finals in Dallas, and the Sabres win this fictional Game 7, 3-1. Martin Biron makes 18 saves in the injured Dominik Hasek's stead, and the Sabres score an even-strength goal (Michal Grosek), a power-play goal (Jason Woolley) and a shorthanded goal (Dixon Ward), the latter putting the game away in the third period.

[FogBat]

November 3, 1999

 

It's a rematch of the Stanley Cup finals in Dallas, and the Sabres win this fictional Game 7, 3-1. Martin Biron makes 18 saves in the injured Dominik Hasek's stead, and the Sabres score an even-strength goal (Michal Grosek), a power-play goal (Jason Woolley) and a shorthanded goal (Dixon Ward), the latter putting the game away in the third period.

I'd love to bring back every one of those players that were involved in that infamous Game Six and use them to settle the score. I would also make sure that the zebras enforce the crease rule that was in place at that time.

 

BTW, if a Dallas fan visits this site and sees what I wrote, just remember that I've yet to see the Stars legitimately win a Stanley Cup. As one email writer to Hockey This Morning on Home Ice said, "Cheaters never win. They just finish in first place." I couldn't have said that better myself.

[Corp000085]

I'd love to bring back every one of those players that were involved in that infamous Game Six and use them to settle the score. I would also make sure that the zebras enforce the crease rule that was in place at that time.

 

BTW, if a Dallas fan visits this site and sees what I wrote, just remember that I've yet to see the Stars legitimately win a Stanley Cup. As one email writer to Hockey This Morning on Home Ice said, "Cheaters never win. They just finish in first place." I couldn't have said that better myself.

 

 

 

you know, as time goes by, i lose my hatred for the stars. it really wasn't their fault that they won that way. do you honestly think that they want to be the bastard champs? i fear that will happen to the sabres or bills when its finally their turn. nobody wants to win that way! I have even lost my loathing for brett hull. his smugness after that goal, all those interviews... that wasn't him being a jerk, that was him explaining away something that wasn't explainable. Now, i still blame folks like bettman, campbell, the refs, and wayne gretzky. I'll take that to my grave if we never win in my lifetime... i can deal with the stars players though (plus, we totally made ken hitchcock our b**ch. )

[DR HOLLIDAY]

I still hate hull and kerry fraser...................... :censored: suckers

[Stoner]

Corp, why Bettman? I've never had a good explanation for how Bettman can be blamed for the call -- if it was the wrong call. :)

 

Doc, why Fraser? The ref that night was Gregson.

[Corp000085]

Corp, why Bettman? I've never had a good explanation for how Bettman can be blamed for the call -- if it was the wrong call. :)

 

Doc, why Fraser? The ref that night was Gregson.

 

simply because he was there... he wouldn't let ruff even speak to him, and he was the #1 guy for toting the company line...

 

sorta like the anti-policy people who hate on george bush for the mismanaged war in iraq rather than hate on the generals who actually plan the thing.

[scottnc]

Corp, why Bettman? I've never had a good explanation for how Bettman can be blamed for the call -- if it was the wrong call. :)

 

I think Bettman and Colin Campbell caught a lot of the flak for the attempts to explain it away after the fact. The whole mysterious memo that was supposedly sent around in March of that year supposdedly redefining the rule to put more discretion in the ref's hands. There was a comment that not every little nuance of the rules was actually in the rule book. I think a lot of people saw that as BS because they couldn't say "Oops, we screwed up" after the cup was awarded.

[Stoner]

What was he supposed to do? Listen to Ruff's complaint and call the video replay booth and order the goal overturned? It's not the role of the commissioner. I never saw Paul Tagliabue with his head under the hood.

[Taro T]

What was he supposed to do? Listen to Ruff's complaint and call the video replay booth and order the goal overturned? It's not the role of the commissioner. I never saw Paul Tagliabue with his head under the hood.

For the 1,000th time, he should have made them FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE that was IN THE RULEBOOK. He didn't and they didn't. They BLATENTLY didn't follow the procedure.

 

HE WAS IN THE BUILDING. HE WAS THERE WHERE THEY "MADE THE CALL" IN THE BOOTH.

 

The #$%^@^ decision was the REFEREE's and the REFEREE's ONLY.

 

Not even getting into the merit of whether it was a goal or not. BTW, it WASN'T. The #$@#$%@ LEAGUE screwed up in letting people on the ice immediately following the goal, and they screwed up even worse BY NOT FOLLOWING the $#!%@! PROCEDURE.

 

All the replay official was supposed to do was tell Gregson whether or not the player was in the crease. After that was established, it was up to Gregson to determine whether the goal should count or not. IT WAS NOT THE REPLAY OFFICIAL's DECISION and it DEFINITELY wasn't Lewis' decision. He was only supposed to be an impartial observer NOT an arbiter. AND btw, it's BS that HE made the decision. The reporters were let on the ice and the league thought they would look dumber reviewing the play than making the reporters leave the ice. The league was WRONG.

 

That was one of the lowest moments in league history. (No, that isn't an exaggeration.) And it happened on Bettman's watch while he was in the building.

[Stoner]

Dave, not a big of fan of delegating I see. :) I think passion is getting the best of you. You may very well be 100% right about everything else, but there's no way the commissioner of a sports league should get involved in the officiating process. Even accepting the idea that he should have, one would have to presume that he knew that there was a controversy. The players and the coaching staff and the fans, even those watching on TV or listening on the radio, knew nothing about it. How was Bettman supposed to know? Ruff came out minutes after the goal was allowed and started complaining. Was Bettman supposed to get involved then, based on the word of the losing coach?

 

Two questions: if a blown call decides a Super Bowl, do you blame Roger Goodall, the new commish, for not making it right? He'd be in the building. And why didn't Terry Gregson stick to his guns? If they told him Hull was in the crease, BUT... why didn't he just ignore the "but," turn to center ice and wave it off?

[Taro T]

Dave, not a big of fan of delegating I see. :) I think passion is getting the best of you. You may very well be 100% right about everything else, but there's no way the commissioner of a sports league should get involved in the officiating process. Even accepting the idea that he should have, one would have to presume that he knew that there was a controversy. The players and the coaching staff and the fans, even those watching on TV or listening on the radio, knew nothing about it. How was Bettman supposed to know? Ruff came out minutes after the goal was allowed and started complaining. Was Bettman supposed to get involved then, based on the word of the losing coach?

 

Two questions: if a blown call decides a Super Bowl, do you blame Roger Goodall, the new commish, for not making it right? He'd be in the building. And why didn't Terry Gregson stick to his guns? If they told him Hull was in the crease, BUT... why didn't he just ignore the "but," turn to center ice and wave it off?

1. How the hell does he NOT know? You are honestly going to tell me that not one person working for the league that night had the balls to tell him "uh, chief, there's something you should know ...". That's with giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't in the same room with the rest of the officials when it happened.

 

If he honestly didn't know what had happened, someone's head should have rolled, namely Brian Lewis, who was made the point man on the post game spin. He was in charge of officials and reported directly to Bettman. Why didn't Bettman can him for VIOLATING the PROCEDURES and making the league look like a garage league?

 

2. Bettman should have been on top of things. The people working for the Sabres who had access to the replay (the guy running the Jumbotron) knew what the hell was going on and were NOT ALLOWED to put the replay on the Jumbotron. (Yes, I do know that FOR a FACT.) They went IMMEDIATELY to "Dallas Stars 1999 Stanley Cup Champions". If the league officials didn't know something was BS, why didn't they allow the replay to be shown?

 

2Q's 1. If procedures are followed, no I don't blame him (nor did I blame Tags for all the blown calls in the last SuperBowl). If a ref screws up, he screws up. People are human and mistakes happen. However ...

 

If a procedure isn't followed AND Goodell has an opportunity to correct this oversight, then hell yes I blame him. (Which is the EXACT same situation Bettman was in.)

 

2Q's 2. Gregson TRIED to stick to his guns. He was at the scorer's table talking on the phone for (what seemed like) ~5 minutes. He asked repeatedly if Hull was in the crease. The response he got back was "the goal was good". (I have this quote from Gregson on paper but don't have time to track it down. I have an electronic copy of his comments regarding the "scoring" play itself but not the comments regarding speaking with the replay officials.) What more was HE to do. HE followed the !#%@#! procedure. He and McCreary did what they were supposed to do, the whole while the circus was going on around them.

 

2Q's 3. They DIDN'T tell him Hull was in the crease. (That's a big part of my mother #@@!! point. The @#$%@#% procedure was NOT followed.) There was nothing else for HIM to do. The league forked this one royally. Bettman's in charge AND he's in the building. The dillweed didn't even have the balls to handle the postgame press conference himself. He made Lewis handle it after Gary left the building. That is horsefeather leadership.

 

(Don't get me wrong. Bettman has done good things, several for Buffalo and the Sabres, but he did the Sabres, himself, and his sport no favors that morning.)

[Corp000085]

gee dave, thanks for driving home the memory of that night even more clearly... so, i was at the game and i didn't even know there was a friggin controversy till i watched the 6pm news the next day! that set of events was 100x darker than OJ and 1000x darker than norwood. That's why i dream of one day a sabres captain takes the cup from bettman, on home ice, and pulls out a sharpie, puts a big X over the 1999 stars and tells bettman to f*ck off... now that's a legacy for danny briere or chris drury!

[sabregoats]

I was at the game as well and didn't know about it until the car ride home listening to the radio. However, that is because the goal wasn't shown on the jumbotron. When no replay was shown I began to think something was fishy, but I was happy with how the team played and to have the opportunity to see the cup. That above statement would still hold true had I never saw a replay of the goal with Hull's entire foot in the crease. The moment I saw the replay I was sick and ever sense whenever someone says no goal that same feeling comes up. It was bogus and was only fitting that it happened to a Buffalo team.

 

All that being said the rule was a bogus rule and should never have been in the books. In today's NHL that would be a fine and legal goal, but it happened in 1999 and every other goal that happened like that through out the year was reviewed. The only goal not reviewed correctly all year decided the winner of Lord Stanley's Cup and I bet somewhere in england that man was roling in his grave.