PASabreFan
-
Posts
45,560 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PASabreFan
-
-
When did this happen? Now you can't drink orange juice, which is allegedly as bad as pop? I know there's a lot of sugar in it — we used to give it to my mum when she got woozy from the diabeetus — but it's all natural sugar. I don't know. I'm not giving it up. I've had the flu once, and it wasn't terrible, and about twice a winter, for six hours, my throat tickles, then goes away. I credit the vitamin C in the OJ. Run, Juice, run!
-
Ouch, hope you land safe and can get some quality refreshment...I had belgium waffles for dinner with corn beef hash
That's super. The guy's already on the verge of ralphing!
-
It's entirely possible I saw this posted here, forgot, then reposted it here.
I'd like you to come in for a complete checkup right away. You'll need to put on a gown, but chz and I will look at you in only a clinical way.
-
I like how, after he murders a thread, Tank cleans up all nice and leaves no trace he was there, like our very own Dexter.
-
Ghost is my Poster of the Year.
{GODD}
-
There, there. It's a nice day.
How about a liverwurst and mustard sandwich with a plate of pickles followed by a nap in the backyard recliner?
Go on back. I'll bring it out for you.
Thataboy. There, there. That's better.
I don't like this kid Wieland, that's all. He's got his girl using that newfangled mimeograph machine all day. I don't like it! No sir!
-
No. It's irrelevant because those two goals were scored under a different set of rules. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, they actually changed the wording at some point from (paraphrasing here) "not allowing the goalie to do his business in the crease" to (paraphrasing here, too) "any body part in the crease".
Again, I don't really think they did it on purpose, but after they F'd up they had to cover up.
I thought you were right. Now I don't know.
http://www.rauzuluss...y/nhlrules.html
1991-92 - Video replays employed to assist referees in goal/no goal situations. Size of goal crease increased. Crease changed to semi-circular configuration. Time clock to record tenths of a second in last minute of each period and overtime. Major and -tame misconduct penalty for checking from behind into boards. Penalties added for crease infrinement and unnecessary contact with goaltender. Goal disallowed if puck enters net while a player of the attacking team is standing on the goal crease line, is in the goal crease or places his stick In the goal crease.
Gregson is on record as stating that if he had been told Hull's skate was in the crease, the goal would have been waived off. That didn't happen.
Since the league had issued supplemental rules with 12 exceptions to the crease rule, the information given to the ref from upstairs couldn't include just "hey, his skate was in the crease." Wouldn't it be more like, "Hey, his skate was in the crease, but he had control of the puck before that"?
Imagine that Miro Satan fakes a shot at the other end, goes around Belfour, gets the toe of his skate in the crease and scores. Did you really want Lewis to merely tell Gregson, "Skate in the crease" and Gregson to waive it off?
-
This story is getting old.
-
I'm not convinced Joel Armia is a human being......
ha! I've never seen the man!
-
I wish for someone to tabulate, for 1994-1999, the total % of regulation goals reviewed/overturned vs. the total % of overtime goals reviewed/overturned.
I have a hypothesis that Overtime Goals just simply weren't reviewed as often.
I have a corollary to that hypothesis, that those goals weren't reviewed as often because the NHL did not have a pre-emptive process in place to control the ice while the goals were reviewed.
Interesting. Of course the league maintains that Hull's goal was reviewed. The officials did stand by the glass and apparently got the "good goal" signal.
I think the conventional wisdom is that the league couldn't and wouldn't overturn the goal because the ice was already littered with people. I'd like to think it didn't really matter. Of course many others think the situation conveniently fell in Bettman's lap and he was more than happy to slip Dallas the Cup.
-
Irrelevant.
It's relevant in that it might demonstrate how things can get pretty loosey goosey after midnight. And I highly doubt any of the Buffalo conspiracy theorists would argue the league wanted to help the Sabres win that game.
-
19 pairs of back-to-backs. Isn't that on par with the two season the Sabres lead the league in that department?
Interesting. You too, weave. Passive-aggressive tanking?
-
Should this goal have counted?
-
I know for a fact that the people in charge that night knew the goal might not be legit when they opened the Zamboni door. I won't (and never did in
all the years we discussed this) reveal my source for that, and therefore understand your not believing me on that singular point.
You mean the people in charge of the door? Did they get some communication from league officials to open the door? Toward what end? To undercut Bryan Lewis' ability to review and overturn the goal? Or was Lewis in on it?
You can see how it's not all that plausible that some conspiracy was hatched so quickly. In the video I'm linking here, Dallas (presumably) media started entering the ice from the runway behind the Dallas bench 21 seconds after the goal.
-
We both know Rigas and Quinn would have taken the bribe. Darcy would go along with it because he was still the new guy and didn't want to get fired. Lindy probably had no idea if a memo existed or not anyway. He's probably the only innocent one in all of this.
Rigas had fired Quinn. Quinn was certainly working under deep cover for the league. I bet it was Quinn, the man holding the umbrella, who opened the Zamboni door. Which led to Quinn getting a piece of the Sabres. And, ultimately, to Pegula, who, conveniently, doesn't remember No Goal ever happening. Interesting.
That link was to a story written ten years after the fact. In it, he quotes what he himself wrote "some time later". You then say that he "has it quite mixed up". Help me out here, what sort of truth am I supposed to gleen from that article again?
Well, OK. The author writes he has "now" seen a copy of the memo, 10 years later. So it could be something the league phonied up afterwards. What we need is absolute proof that the memo was actually sent out in March of 1999. That will be hard. Anyone who says they received it can be accused of lying. Gary Thorne mentioned seeing it, but that was after the goal, and Bettman probably was holding Thorne's infant son in front of his face, with a knife to its throat.
-
:lol:
To me there is no more worthy conspiracy than No Goal. There are a lot of things I'll give the benefit of the doubt to but the facts surrounding this are just too suspicious to gloss over.
You'd think the Dallas Stars or the NHL would have reproduced the memo in the media somewhere just for posterity. But no...
There was no memo.
I know what you're doing.
-
Until someone produces physical proof that the memo exists or existed I refuse to believe it did and that the league didn't threaten secret sanctions against the Sabres if they didn't keep their mouths shut after the fact. I also believe that anyone who came out saying the league memo existed was paid to do so.
I've never been prouder to be your father. You know I don't have long to post. Doc said three months, maybe four. I will live on through you. I will live on through you.
And yet no one ever produced it. Wouldn't that be a document you'd file in your folder of league memos to refer to later? Funny that no one filed a single copy of that memo.
Darcy was probably scanning everything during the big Optical Character Recognition craze of 99, then he shredded it.
-
It really is the gift that keeps giving. The rewriting of history on both sides of the issue is impressive. Thorne may have mentioned the memo. It certainly wasn't the next morning. The NHL knew they F'ed up and absolutely tried to cover their tracks.
One question. As the rules were understood at the time of the goal, if there was a coaches challenge, would the goal have been overturned?
I'm still trying to figure out how Hasek getting beaten in the six hole was let go. That one is even more mind-blowing to me.
The Sabres said they got the memo! I posted a link where a respected Buffalo News sportswriter quoted it! I don't really hold it against people who haven't been as semi-obsessed with the topic as I have, but, come on… the league issued the memo in March. Teams got it. Media people read it.
-
Annoying that the NHL is doing this delayed "reveal." It's not the NFL. We know what teams the Sabres will play, and how often. We know there will be a West Coast trip and we know we will face some team on its East Coast trip. This is stupid.
Yay! I learned that the Sabres open against Columbus at home and Chicago on the road!
Like I didn't know Buffalo was going to play those teams at some point.
This is silly. I don't care in which order the Sabres play their opponents, and I doubt anyone else does.
It does add some excitement to a Saturday night. Tomorrow's the big day. I might have trouble sleeping.
-
Soooo, what's the argument here, then? Is there one?
Not really. I think Taro misread what I reported about the memo and decided to attack me. On this topic, he has always considered me his personal bitch.
-
Schopp has the full schedule?
-
My only purpose is to never let the lie that 'no goal' was legit gain any quarter. I will not admit to being wrong on this because I am not. I am still waiting for the puck to drop at the Sabres' blue line to the left of Hasek.
I will agree that the league didn't change the rule w/ the phantom memo. But the league absolutely changed the rule on the fly early that morning to justify their horribly expedient decision to allow the goal. And they used a misinterpretation of that phantom memo as their justification. (Which is why they only described it 15 years ago and refused to produce it - thus the term 'phantom memo' being used to refer to it.)
Though 'some' may have argued control was defined too narrowly (primarily Brett Hull and his mommy & daddy), the refs on the ice that night are not among them and are on record as stating that had they seen Hull's skate in the crease (Holzinger blocked the view of Gregson) the play would have been ruled no goal. I suppose now that Gregson and McCreary were unreasonable by 'their' definition?
In the days after No Goal, the Sabres acknowledged receiving the memo. Gary Thorne mentioned seeing the memo on the air that morning when the controversy started coming to light. Budd Bailey of the News quoted it here: http://buddbailey.bl...go-tonight.html (And although I like Budd and he's helped me out with some things, I would not encourage anyone to read that whole piece — Budd has it quite mixed up.)
So I don't get how it was "phantom."
While we now agree that the call was wrong, where we'll probably never agree is on your idea that there was some kind of conspiracy involving changing the rule, Bettman intervening to throw the series to Dallas and so on. I think you know the league isn't that competent. It was very late (or early), and they screwed up. (Edit: To clarify, yes, in the postgame presser, Bryan Lewis appeared to change the rule. He did so by misspeaking, I think. What I'm trying to say is that after the goal was scored, I don't think Lewis jumped up and said, "You know what, screw maintaining control, let's say all you have to maintain is possession.")
-
Every other goal that was scored in the exact same manner as the Hull goal that year was taken off the scoreboard. That's all I need to know that there was an injustice done toward the Sabres. Oh,yeah, that, and the fact that they changed the rules about nine minutes after that game was over. Anyone that says that was the right call is rewriting history.
I'd be surprised if there was another "exact same" situation as the Hull "goal." Claude here is a golf fan and I'm sure he knows there are the rules of golf and the decisions on the rules of golf. Weird things happen on the golf course. I think you can look at the memo as hockey's version of "decisions on the…" That said, no one here is arguing it was the right call. Not anymore, anyway. When I thought kicking the puck constituted control, I argued that it was.
-
Let me make it clearer (and, really, you're the one "obfuscating" my comment to suit your purpose, which seems to be that you can never admit that anyone other than yourself has possession and control of a fact; you've literally never been wrong here): the criticism of the league for changing the crease rule late in the 1998-99 season and hiding those changes in a memo is unjustified. And, yes, I read that surprising tidbit only in the last six months. And, no, of course, I can't find the link right now. But I will, or die trying.
As for the rest of it, there's no debate any more between us. Yes, the league conflated possession and control, and they screwed up the call. (Hull, however, did control the puck during the sequence on two occasions: when he tipped Modano's shot and when he pulled the puck out of Hasek's reach. Both times, the puck then hit Hasek, and control was wiped out.)
For newcomers to the debate, control was later defined to include the act of kicking the puck, but that did not exist in the rule book in 1999. Some have argued that the definition of control as it existed in the rule book then was too narrow (it was in the section on tripping and penalty shots, and what constitutes control during those situations) and that any reasonable ref or league official would have considered Hull to have controlled the puck when he kicked it onto his stick. I wouldn't make that argument in the context of justifying Hull's goal, because the memo talked about maintaining control.
Anywho, we now rejoin As the World Turns already in progress...
Complaint Thursdays
in The Aud Club
Posted
It truly is the best day of the year for Sabres fans. Many Cups will be won tomorrow.