Quote

[DrunkenSabre]

The Buffalo Sabres would simply like the first illegal goal scored by the other team to be disallowed. And why not review Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winner after all this time?

 

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/dave_hodge.asp

 

thought that was worth a laugh.

[Saber61]

haha... good article... i like it... if only something could be done about 99... even a public apology... but bettmans discrete apology of implementing a cap so teams like buffalo have a chance to win is enough for me... he made good on 99... it took a while but we got it to go.

[Stoner]

The league doesn't feel like it has anything to apologize for. It said it got the call right.

[shrader]

I liked the comment about the national anthems. I hate how all these women go crazy and add stuff to the song.

[hopeleslyobvious]

The league doesn't feel like it has anything to apologize for. It said it got the call right.

That sounds as ridiculious as changing the rule a month later to fit the call...oh wait.

[Taro T]

That sounds as ridiculious as changing the rule a month later to fit the call...oh wait.

It was more like 3 days later, but we get the point.

[shrader]

It was more like 3 days later, but we get the point.

Come on, the memo that no one actually remembers ever receiving clearly spelled out the rule change before the playoffs started.

[Taro T]

Come on, the memo that no one actually remembers ever receiving clearly spelled out the rule change before the playoffs started.

No, no, no. That memo pertained to the rule INTERPRETATION, not the actual rule change which was agreed upon at the governor's meeting immediately following the playoffs.

 

Of course Turgeon, in a nearly identical situation to Hull's in the 1st round, had the goal waived off. I guess those replay guys caught heck for not following the edict of the never sent memo. (Yeah, right.)

[Stoner]

I don't think anyone would disagree that you COULD score a legal goal that season with your skate in the crease preceding the puck, as long as it was the eventual scorer's skate and he was in possession of the puck and there was no interference with the goalie. No one would want to see a goal taken back because a player on a breakaway cut across the crease and had the toe of his skate in the crease before scoring.

 

Everyone cites the hundreds of examples where goals were called back because of a skate in the crease that season -- but not the scorer's skate. Hull's goal was a different situation and such an odd scenario that no one probably ever envisioned it happening. Shot off the goalie, shooter technically maintaining possession, then controlling the puck onto his stick with his skate, but the skate entering the crease while the puck was outside of it, shooter scoring... Bizarre.

 

It was handled poorly by the league, partly their fault and partly just a situation that got out of control (players and media flooding the ice). They should have immediately announced that the play was under review and cleared the ice surface of non-players. But I honestly the result of a prolonged review would have been the same as the short, unannounced review they did -- because the rule was applied correctly.

 

Look on the bright side. After a prolonged review, with the goal shown dozens of time on the Jumbotron, and the inevitable result -- good goal -- I am convinced it would have been likely that many fans, and some random troublemakers in town, would have rioted outside the arena. Someone might be alive today because fans were kept a bit in the dark. Yeah, that's a stretch, but I often look at it that way.

 

Ultimately, as I've said before, I am fine with the call, even if it was somehow the wrong one. I don't want the Sabres first Stanley Cup to have an asterisk engraved in it. *Won because of the NHL's ridiculous crease rule. Hull's goal was fine for generations of play in professional hockey.

 

OK, boys, lay your best low hip check on THAT post. :)

[hopeleslyobvious]

Come on, the memo that no one actually remembers ever receiving clearly spelled out the rule change before the playoffs started.

Anyone remember any goals that got called back for a foot in the crease earlier in the playoffs that year? I'm sure there was at least one.

[fushetti]

Being at the game when Hull scored the winner, we were totally kept in the dark. Like PA said, there wouldve been a riot.

 

Secondly, it was like 130am. I think everyone in the NHL wanted that thing overwith. Puck goes in.. Stars go nuts on the ice... the cup is presented. Although it wouldve been friggin fantastic to see a "stanley cup winning goal" disallowed to a team going crazy, it just is not going to happen.

 

Third, the Sabres best chance to win that game was in the 2nd overtime. When Patrick hit the crossbar, it was deflating to the team. They barely skated in the last overtime. Belfour was unbeatable. It was inevitable they would lose.

 

 

My personal feeling is, given the way the Stars suffocated us in game 5 (and i know, games are played on the ice, not on paper or in fushetti's head) that the Stars wouldve employed the same style and choked us in Game 7 for an eventual victory anyway. After that 2-0 loss, I lost all hope. The Stars had the timely scoring and a suffocating style of play with a hall of fame goalie. The Sabres hadn't been the same since Game 5 of the Leafs series.

 

Or we can take the easy road and just blame the seldom used Darryl Shannon or Hasek for the Lehtinen goal. We wouldve won that game 1-0

[BRH]

Ultimately, as I've said before, I am fine with the call, even if it was somehow the wrong one. I don't want the Sabres first Stanley Cup to have an asterisk engraved in it. *Won because of the NHL's ridiculous crease rule.

So you'd rather the Stars' first Stanley Cup have an asterisk engraved in it? * Won because NHL decided right then not to enforce rule it had enforced all season

 

Who cares about asterisks, real or imagined? All I know is they got the Cup, not us. I'd prefer it was the other way around.

[Stoner]

Yes, better that they live with the perception of a tainted Cup than us.

[Taro T]

I don't think anyone would disagree that you COULD score a legal goal that season with your skate in the crease preceding the puck, as long as it was the eventual scorer's skate and he was in possession of the puck and there was no interference with the goalie. No one would want to see a goal taken back because a player on a breakaway cut across the crease and had the toe of his skate in the crease before scoring.

 

Everyone cites the hundreds of examples where goals were called back because of a skate in the crease that season -- but not the scorer's skate. Hull's goal was a different situation and such an odd scenario that no one probably ever envisioned it happening. Shot off the goalie, shooter technically maintaining possession, then controlling the puck onto his stick with his skate, but the skate entering the crease while the puck was outside of it, shooter scoring... Bizarre.

 

It was handled poorly by the league, partly their fault and partly just a situation that got out of control (players and media flooding the ice). They should have immediately announced that the play was under review and cleared the ice surface of non-players. But I honestly the result of a prolonged review would have been the same as the short, unannounced review they did -- because the rule was applied correctly.

 

Look on the bright side. After a prolonged review, with the goal shown dozens of time on the Jumbotron, and the inevitable result -- good goal -- I am convinced it would have been likely that many fans, and some random troublemakers in town, would have rioted outside the arena. Someone might be alive today because fans were kept a bit in the dark. Yeah, that's a stretch, but I often look at it that way.

 

Ultimately, as I've said before, I am fine with the call, even if it was somehow the wrong one. I don't want the Sabres first Stanley Cup to have an asterisk engraved in it. *Won because of the NHL's ridiculous crease rule. Hull's goal was fine for generations of play in professional hockey.

 

OK, boys, lay your best low hip check on THAT post. :)

Rules in effect at the time:

 

Rule 78b - 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 conditions prevail the goal shall not be allowed. ...

 

Rule 93h - The On Ice Officials or Video Goal Judge may be consulted to establish if an attacking player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequent goal. The Video Goal Judge may initiate this information to the Officials by calling to ice level. The Video Goal Judge is to advise the Referee of the position of the attacking player when the puck enters the crease or is in contact with the crease line. Any information as to the position of the attacking player may be "overruled" if the Officials have determined that the attacking player was pushed or held in the crease at the time of a goal being scored.

 

PA, nowhere in there does it say you can preceed the puck into the crease provided you are the one that scores the ensuing goal. It was a very straight forward rule and caused situations like that which you described. While admitting that I have never seen the "mystery memo", all NHL official commentary regarding it that I have seen indicated that it was basically designed to clarify that the league wanted goals to count if a skater maintained possession and CONTROL of the puck and preceded the puck into the crease. It addressed the issue of breakaways that you brought up, BUT it did not address the Hull situation which was a player maintaining possession but not control. The league planned to modify the rule AFTER the season to allow incidental contact with the crease to not disallow goals, but unfortunately for the Sabres they enforced the modification before the season ended.

 

The league did not follow its own procedures on the play. (Talk about a bush league.) The replay officials never gave the information that Hull was in the crease to Gregson nor McCreary. According to the rules it is the Referees who are supposed to have the final decision on whether or not the goal was legal. Gregson and McCreary stood at the timekeeper's bench and never got a call from upstairs. In Lewis' embarrassing press conference, he stated that the decision was made BY THE REPLAY JUDGE, that alone should make one wonder: why exactly did the replay judge have to make the decision, when it clearly was the responsibility of the Referees.

 

Bettman thought that it would be more embarrassing to the league to get the call right and clear the ice of nonparticipants than it would be to simply award the Cup to one of the competitors. He should have done the right thing, not the easy thing. If he does, maybe Dallas scores on their next shot and the whole thing is moot. We will never know the results, but I liked the Sabres chances a lot more being given a chance to compete.

[shrader]

Yes, better that they live with the perception of a tainted Cup than us.

Hull's goal being overturned would not have resulted in the Cup being immediately handed to Buffalo. The Sabres would've still had to go out and win that game in overtime, and then win game 7. If that happened, how could it be viewed as tainted (other than some other disputed call that could've happened)?

[Stoner]

This is why people love sports. As long as people reside in Buffalo, which should be, what, another 10 or 15 years at least, this call will be debated.

 

shrader, It would have been tainted in that Dallas would have been denied the Cup on a wrong call IMHO. And believe it or not, outside of Buffalo there were plenty of hockey and media people who believed it was the right call. Even if Hull's goal shouldn't have counted, and the Sabres had gone on to win the Cup, it would always have been remembered as the year the Sabres won because of that stinkin' crease rule that everyone hated.

 

By the way, I'm also glad the Sabres didn't win a "half Cup" in 1995.

 

Dave... Is the kicking of a puck onto your stick an example of control? I'd say so. Lewis maintains not only that the goal was reviewed, but that a call was made to ice level to say it was a goal. Indeed, the refs did stand near the boards for a time after the goal. That doesn't change your point about the ultimate decision being in the hands of the refs, which is an interesting twist to this debate I had never heard. Again, though, I maintain that however screwed up the process was, somehow the league got the call right. Just curious -- how can you blame Bettman? Assuming he wasn't consulted or actively involved in the decision, he would seem to be blameless, the poor schmuck. Was he in the replay booth? Was he called?

 

I think everyone would benefit from reading the transcript of various postgame interviews, especially Lewis'.

 

http://www.missico.com/personal/tidbits/sa...game_quotes.htm

 

P.S. I am trying to find more information about it, but I remember that a controversial goal in St. Louis around midseason resulted in the infamous memo.

[Taro T]

Dave... Is the kicking of a puck onto your stick an example of control? I'd say so. Lewis maintains not only that the goal was reviewed, but that a call was made to ice level to say it was a goal. Indeed, the refs did stand near the boards for a time after the goal. That doesn't change your point about the ultimate decision being in the hands of the refs, which is an interesting twist to this debate I had never heard. Again, though, I maintain that however screwed up the process was, somehow the league got the call right. Just curious -- how can you blame Bettman? Assuming he wasn't consulted or actively involved in the decision, he would seem to be blameless, the poor schmuck. Was he in the replay booth? Was he called?

 

I think everyone would benefit from reading the transcript of various postgame interviews, especially Lewis'.

PA, I agree with you that Lewis' statements are telling, but I come to a completely different conclusion upon hearing them than you did.

 

A puck bouncing off a guy's skate prior to him having the puck on his stick would not be "control" in my opinion. If having the puck hit his skate is control, then on a delayed penalty having the puck deflect off a defender's skate should be "control" and get the whistle to blow. It doesn't. Therefore, that should not be considered control.

 

Read all of what Lewis says about possesion and control. He either knows less about hockey than I do, which I find VERY doubtful; or he was LYING. There is no way possible for a player to take a shot AND maintain control of the puck. Yes his TEAM maintains POSSESSION even if the puck bounces off the goalie, but the PLAYER CAN NOT have possibly maintained CONTROL. (Not even Gretzky can control what happens to the puck AFTER he shoots it.)

 

Lewis: "... A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post, an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession and therefore Hull would be deemed to be in possession, control of the puck; allowed to shoot and score a goal, even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck. ..."

 

Lewis also states that the league followed a procedure which is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of the RULEBOOK. When asked who made the "final decision", he stated it was someone upstairs and not either Referee.

 

Lewis: "Charlie Banfield, Larry Rupter (phonetic) in conjunction with both video goal judges that work here were there with us as well. But it is the League person who takes over -- there is a League person at every Playoff game. The series supervisor sits with the video goal judge."

 

Lewis also claims the replay people made their decision almost immediately with different people looking at separate distinct views and that there were no lengthy delays, but yet he had the refs standing there by the timekeepers bench for several minutes waiting for a call from upstairs. Which was it Mr. Lewis, was there no announcement of the play being reviewed because the review was over too quickly, or were the refs still standing there several minutes later waiting for the call from above? Or was there no announcement of the play being reviewed because in all of the chaos, there was no review performed? (I'll let you guess which I think is the true answer.)

 

Finally, as to why I was (and to a degree still am) ticked at Bettman. This is his toy. He was in the building, he could have taken charge but he didn't. Ruff says that Gary ignored his questions about what happened. I can't say I witnessed that, but I DID witness Gary ignore Mike Peca. My wife and I couldn't figure out why Peca was on the bench near Bettman, when we got to the car to listen to the postgame show we found out why he was there. As I stated, I think Bettman thought it would be more embarrassing to get all the media people off the ice and play the game until God knows when, than to claim the goal was legit (when in fact it wasn't) and just get everything over with. I don't think he did it to hose the Sabres, had it been a Sabres goal in the next game it would have worked the same way. That doesn't make it right.

[IKnowPhysics]

Gary Bettman began as the NHL Commissioner in February of 1993. During his tenure, the smallest market team to win a Stanley Cup was Montreal in '93. Since that time, cup winners have all been large American markets: New York, New Jersey x 3, Colorado x 2, Detroit x 3, Dallas x 1, and Tampa x 1. The League was NOT excited about a Tampa vs. Calgary Finals series.

 

In 1999, I knew deep down that top NHL officials would've hated to see us win.

 

I don't know if you guys caught the article about Bob Swados' book last week. It's all on paper.

 

The Buffalo Sabres had just "stolen" the first game of the Stanley Cup finals, skating into Dallas and surprising the Dallas Stars in overtime. The date was June 8, 1999.

 

The referee had called a disproportionate number of penalties on the Sabres, at one point sending seven straight Buffalo players to the penalty box.

 

When Robert O. Swados, longtime Sabres counsel and secretary of the NHL Board of Governors, reached for a congratulatory handshake from the top NHL brass afterward, all he got was stony silence.

 

"Well, I guess justice triumphed over adversity," Swados quipped to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman.

 

Without cracking a smile, Bettman responded like a stern judge: "Adversity justified."

 

Swados understood the icy response, writing that it was clear the Sabres' win "had injected an unpleasant ghost into the league's TV plans and projected ratings."

 

Of course, Swados remembered that exchange when the Sabres lost the Stanley Cup a few nights later on the infamous Brett Hull "No Goal." An experienced high-stakes attorney, Swados questions whether proper procedures were followed for the disputed goal:

 

"Did the referee ask for review? Was (Sabres coach Lindy) Ruff prevented from seeking it? Did Bettman turn his back on the coach? Did the gatekeeper open the Zamboni entrance prematurely? Did a league official order him to do so?"

 

The evidence might be circumstantial, but Swados concludes his argument here with a comment from longtime NHL coach Pat Quinn, who greeted him later by saying, "You got screwed, Bob."

 

A league commissioner more concerned with revenues and success of forced-expansion teams into the South and West than fairness, integrity, and sportsmanship in the game doesn't receive repreive from me because he "made the new NHL fair to all teams," when this league would've crashed into the god-damned mountain if he hadn't.

[Stoner]

Dave, before the goal wasn't Bettman in the tunnel waiting to present the Cup if necessary? Or at the very least in the crowd? He was probably as unaware of any controversy as most in attendance. It's not like the fans or Sabres were going nuts. I mean, you heard about it in your car.

 

I think you are distorting what happened a bit. The puck didn't deflect off Hull's skate. He kicked the puck onto his stick. As for Lewis' statement, it's always tough to read what someone said and get the right effect. I read the phrase, "Hull would be deemed to be in possession, control of the puck..." to mean, "Hull would be deemed to be in possession, (then he took) control of the puck..."

 

Physics, your suggestion that the league fixed the playoffs so that large market teams would win is ludicrous. "Adversity justified" to me just means that the Sabres' penalty woes were justified. I don't really recall officiating playing a huge role in that series, Game 6 overtime notwithstanding.

[Taro T]

Dave, before the goal wasn't Bettman in the tunnel waiting to present the Cup if necessary? Or at the very least in the crowd? He was probably as unaware of any controversy as most in attendance. It's not like the fans or Sabres were going nuts. I mean, you heard about it in your car.

 

I think you are distorting what happened a bit. The puck didn't deflect off Hull's skate. He kicked the puck onto his stick. As for Lewis' statement, it's always tough to read what someone said and get the right effect. I read the phrase, "Hull would be deemed to be in possession, control of the puck..." to mean, "Hull would be deemed to be in possession, (then he took) control of the puck..."

 

Physics, your suggestion that the league fixed the playoffs so that large market teams would win is ludicrous. "Adversity justified" to me just means that the Sabres' penalty woes were justified. I don't really recall officiating playing a huge role in that series, Game 6 overtime notwithstanding.

I really doubt that Bettman spent an hour down in the tunnel waiting to hand out the SC. I'm sure he was in a location where Lewis or anybody else could have reached him easily enough if they had wanted to.

 

I still want to know who gave the order for the Zamboni doors to open. If they don't open until after all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed, the game gets resolved correctly. The only reason the league messed up as bad as they did is because all the people were on the ice, IMHO.

 

As for the fans not going nuts, well that is to be expected considering Hull was only in the crease for a very short period of time and Hasek didn't explode as he normally does on controversial goals. Speaking for myself, I was in shock. Had they shown the play on the Jumbotron as 90%+ of all reviewed goals are, the place would have been going nuts.

 

The Sabres DID go nuts. Peca and a couple of others were on the bench trying to get an explanation from Bettman. None was forthcoming. Ruff refused to allow the media into the dressing room until he got an explanation of what was going on. Lewis told Ruff the same bunk he told the media.

 

You are correct about the difficulty in comparing transcripts to actual speech, so I reviewed Lewis' press conference. He was talking about Hull maintaining CONTROL of the puck, not just possession. He also definitely contradicted himself and events with regard to how the referees were contacted. He said the refs wait by the box for the signal and he said they contacted the refs right away. If that was the case, why did the refs stay there for several minutes with Gregson stating that they were waiting for a call. Not that that should be the paramount issue, because the REFEREES are the ones who are supposed to decide whether the goal is legal or not, not some bozo in the press box.

 

This is going to be my last post on this subject today as the whole episode brings up WAY too many bad memories. We can agree to disagree.

[inkman]

 

This is going to be my last post on this subject today as the whole episode brings up WAY too many bad memories. We can agree to disagree.

For the love of all things holy, thank you. This brings me to a dark place that I really stowed away deep in my memory banks. I was at my favorite watering hole when "no goal" went down. Funny thing was I didn't even know there was a controversy. I immediately changed the station (yeah, I visited there frequently) and steered clear of any hockey for about a week. Then I finally tuned into Empire or WNSA and found out the ordeal. I don't know when I was more pissed, when they originally lost or when I found out the stupid "no goal" BS.

[IKnowPhysics]

Physics, your suggestion that the league fixed the playoffs so that large market teams would win is ludicrous.

I'm not saying it's true. But as Serpico put it, "Corruption cannot exist unless it is at least tolerated at higher levels."