"No goal," the saga continues...

[Taro T]

When I said Budd Bailey's article would change some minds, I had no idea it would be mine. But, it has. The text of the memo, which I had never seen, and Taro's clarification on the definition of control in 1999, are game-changers.

 

Two assumptions. One is that Bailey is right when he says only two of the 12 clarifications in the memo are relevant to Hull's goal. I have no reason to doubt Budd, but I do wonder how there are 10 exceptions to the crease rule that couldn't have some application to the goal. Second is that Taro is correct in citing the definition of control from the 99 rule book. I'm sure he is.

 

So Hull had possession of the puck before his left skate entered the crease on the kick -- he was the last player to have touched the puck other than Dom. But he did not have control of it -- Hull played the puck in the crease, controlling it, but then it rebounded off Hasek and outside the crease, nullifying control. The subsequent kick did not constitute control, as it does today.

Holy schneickes, does this mean we don't have to have this debate EVERY year? :beer: :beer: :beer:

 

I recall reading a Jim Kelley article from around that time that said essentially what Bailey said. (Maybe it was the article by Bailey?) I do not seem to have a copy of the article (or can't find it at a minimum).

 

But that memo, and the fact that the league was trying to CIA, was the only reason they ever brought control into the matter. And why they tried so desperately to confuse possession (which Hull obviously maintained) and control (which he, as obviously, didn't maintain). The memo apparently was clear that control was a necessary prerequisite to enter the crease prior to the puck going there, provided the attacker wasn't forced into the crease by a defender. And both Gregson and McCreary were clear on the point that IF Hull were in the crease, he had entered of his own volition.

 

Your final paragraph roughly (though not precisely ;) ) sums up why, given the rules in place at the time, I am still waiting for them to clear the ice and resume play. B-)

[PASabreFan]

Holy schneickes, does this mean we don't have to have this debate EVERY year? :beer: :beer: :beer:

 

I recall reading a Jim Kelley article from around that time that said essentially what Bailey said. (Maybe it was the article by Bailey?) I do not seem to have a copy of the article (or can't find it at a minimum).

 

But that memo, and the fact that the league was trying to CIA, was the only reason they ever brought control into the matter. And why they tried so desperately to confuse possession (which Hull obviously maintained) and control (which he, as obviously, didn't maintain). The memo apparently was clear that control was a necessary prerequisite to enter the crease prior to the puck going there, provided the attacker wasn't forced into the crease by a defender. And both Gregson and McCreary were clear on the point that IF Hull were in the crease, he had entered of his own volition.

 

Your final paragraph roughly (though not precisely ;) ) sums up why, given the rules in place at the time, I am still waiting for them to clear the ice and resume play. B-)

 

What's imprecise about the last paragraph? PA pulls down his pants and asks to get boned again. Do I at least get dinner out of this?

[Taro T]

What's imprecise about the last paragraph? PA pulls down his pants and asks to get boned again. Do I at least get dinner out of this?

The 1st shot came when Hull was outside the crease. Hull did whack at it in the crease, but I'm not certain he actually touched it. Hasek knocked the puck outside the crease, and then Hull kicked it, through the crease and back out, before he finally regained control AFTER his foot was clearly in the crease.

 

My post you replied to came before I re-reviewed that play. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that Hull did whack the puck while it was in the crease, causing it to rebound off Hasek out of the crease. If so, I'll give it to ya. Considering you are now back from the dark-side, I'll definitely give you that one. ;)

[nobody]

no goal.

[Bmwolf21]

They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Imagine in Game 6 if Miro had broken in, deked Belfour, gone around him and scored with the toe of his skate in the crease. Without the memo, the goal does not count.

Not sure your example is accurate, but either way, the NHL screwed themselves. They installed an overly broad rule, and no one had the foresight to examine possible scenarios that would need clarification. Then they got caught with a bunch of questionable situations, realized they #%^$#! the bed with this rule, and decided the best thing to do was issue a secret memo to clarify all the exceptions, aberrations, dream scenarios, and everything else - and made a crappy rule even worse in the process. For me - bottom line, you don't change a rule midseason, and that's what they did.

[Bmwolf21]

no goal.

+1

[PASabreFan]

Not sure your example is accurate, but either way, the NHL screwed themselves. They installed an overly broad rule, and no one had the foresight to examine possible scenarios that would need clarification. Then they got caught with a bunch of questionable situations, realized they #%^$#! the bed with this rule, and decided the best thing to do was issue a secret memo to clarify all the exceptions, aberrations, dream scenarios, and everything else - and made a crappy rule even worse in the process. For me - bottom line, you don't change a rule midseason, and that's what they did.

 

All rules have to be interpreted. Are you familiar with the Decisions on the Rules of Golf? In that the golf season never ends, golf often "changes" its rules during its season. Things happen that no one could anticipate, like a bird taking a dump on a golf ball, forcing the ball to start rolling off a green and into a lake.

 

The league's big mistake was failing to get the fans and media on board with the clarifications. Then, apparently, interpreting those clarifications incorrectly to allow a Cup-winning goal.

[PASabreFan]

The 1st shot came when Hull was outside the crease. Hull did whack at it in the crease, but I'm not certain he actually touched it. Hasek knocked the puck outside the crease, and then Hull kicked it, through the crease and back out, before he finally regained control AFTER his foot was clearly in the crease.

 

My post you replied to came before I re-reviewed that play. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that Hull did whack the puck while it was in the crease, causing it to rebound off Hasek out of the crease. If so, I'll give it to ya. Considering you are now back from the dark-side, I'll definitely give you that one. ;)

 

Here's a video with two definitive looks. Can we at least all agree on what happened?

 

Hull tipped Modano's original shot slightly while outside the crease, Hull entered the crease to play the puck on his backhand, the puck rebounded off Hasek's stick and glove outside the crease completely, Hull left the crease completely, kicked the puck onto his stick with his left skate, the action of which forced his left skate into the crease before the puck got to his stick, and Hull scored with his left skate in the crease. I don't think the kicked puck went through the crease, sort of traversed the crease line, but that doesn't really matter.

 

We now agree that Hull had legal possession of that puck before his left skate entered the crease, but not control of it, since the puck had rebounded off Hasek.

[Bmwolf21]

All rules have to be interpreted. Are you familiar with the Decisions on the Rules of Golf? In that the golf season never ends, golf often "changes" its rules during its season. Things happen that no one could anticipate, like a bird taking a dump on a golf ball, forcing the ball to start rolling off a green and into a lake.

 

The league's big mistake was failing to get the fans and media on board with the clarifications. Then, apparently, interpreting those clarifications incorrectly to allow a Cup-winning goal.

Golf is an individual sport played on unique courses all over the world. There will always be wiggle room and interpretation, just based on the individual nature of the sport. The NHL is a pro sport played on uniform rinks with uniform rules. There shouldn't be that much judgment and interpretation of the rules, and the league should be able to anticipate most scenarios. You're telling me that the NHL couldn't anticipate someone being in the crease before the puck on a rebound?

 

The league's inability (or refusal) to get the fans and media on board was a huge mistake, but it wasn't the only one. The whole way the league handled it was a mistake, starting with the creation of the rule and then waiting until over halfway through the season to clarify and interpret the rules.

 

They could have just stuck to a rigid, black-and-white interpretation for the rest of the season and then changed it in the offseason. In the blue before the puck? No goal. Period. Instead they gave themselves all kinds of exceptions, and it bit them on the ass.

[Taro T]

Here's a video with two definitive looks. Can we at least all agree on what happened?

 

Hull tipped Modano's original shot slightly while outside the crease, Hull entered the crease to play the puck on his backhand, the puck rebounded off Hasek's stick and glove outside the crease completely, Hull left the crease completely, kicked the puck onto his stick with his left skate, the action of which forced his left skate into the crease before the puck got to his stick, and Hull scored with his left skate in the crease. I don't think the kicked puck went through the crease, sort of traversed the crease line, but that doesn't really matter.

 

We now agree that Hull had legal possession of that puck before his left skate entered the crease, but not control of it, since the puck had rebounded off Hasek.

As has been the case from day 1, Hull had possession before he entered the crease, he did not have control. No goal.

[PASabreFan]

As has been the case from day 1, Hull had possession before he entered the crease, he did not have control. No goal.

 

All right, that's a wrap. I don't know why it should have taken 10 years for you to agree with me, but, whatever.

[PASabreFan]

Hey, Taro, what did you think of Bucky's comments on No Goal in his Sunday column?

[Taro T]

Hey, Taro, what did you think of Bucky's comments on No Goal in his Sunday column?

Do you really have to ask that question?

 

Bucky and Brett are both incorrect in believing it was a legitimate goal. The ENTIRE issue of whether the result of the play was a valid goal centers on whether Hull maintained control. He clearly didn't, and it certainly appears that he realizes he didn't maintain control as it is DEFINED in the rulebook, thus his Clintonesque statement about how different people interpret control differently. On June 19th, no one should have claimed a player could have control of the puck prior to playing it with his stick, and I can't honestly believe anyone would be stupid enough to claim that a player maintained control AFTER shooting it (or passing it for that matter). In the wee hours of June 20th because of a huge breach of protocol, the NHL was left with a need for there to be confusion of the issues of what possession was and what control was, because that was the only leg they had left to stand on after they decided that there was too much chaos on the ice to do anything but award the Stars the Stanley Cup.

 

I understand WHY Hull and the league insist the phrase "control of the puck" wasn't clearly defined, even though it clearly was defined. It's the only way they can claim the result was the proper one.

 

I also understand how Bucky can believe the NHL's and Hull's explanations, they've been stating the same story for 10 years, and it is pretty difficult to find a copy of the '99 memo and pertinent rule. While I expect Bucky to fact check his stories, I don't necessarily expect him to spend a few hours tracking down the definition of "control of the puck" as it was defined in the late '90's and early '00's when he could look in today's rulebook and see that the league's version fits in perfectly with what the current definition is.

 

I also realize that the league had no plans to award the SC to the Stars until the events unfolded, but because they did not follow their own procedures (God, I hate the phrase "the playoffs are different") they ended up in the place where they had only 2 options; do the right thing, let the VGJ describe to Gregson what had happened, and almost definitely have him rule (properly) No Goal and then face the embarrassment of having to get all those people off the ice and all the critical comments on Sports Center; or do the expedient thing and lie through their teeth (yes, I said lie, as that is the only thing that the Head of Officiating can be doing when he claims that Hull maintained control throughout the play) and AWARD the Stanley Cup to the Stars. Had they followed the procedures in the 1st place (ref checks with partner to determine if player was in the crease (neither certain, thanks 'Zinger); ref verifies with partner that IF player was in crease, he went of his own accord; ref then waits to hear from VGJ to determine definitively whether player was in crease prior to puck entering crease and VGJ would have to have said that yes, player was in crease prior to puck entering crease and prior to player having control; ref makes (hopefully) correct decision; play continues) there would have been no need to choose between 2 unappealing choices.

 

And, there is no guarantee the Sabres win the Cup that year w/ the play correctly ruled No Goal; there isn't even a guarantee that the Sabres win that game with the correct ruling. But there sure as heck was an infinitely better chance of either occurring had the NHL done the right thing instead of the expedient thing.

 

Does anyone truly find it surprising that the ONLY rule from the '99 rulebook from Section 6 has a broken link on the Wayback Machine is the one that defines "control of the puck"?

[PASabreFan]

Ooh, ahh, Taro on the warpath, ooh, ahh.

 

I'm not sure why Gleason assigns so much blame to Holzinger. Holzinger had Hull lined up and went flying through the crease to hit him, but Hull was backing up and Zinger barely missed him. Watching that overhead angle, it's unbelievable that Brian never kicked the puck. Both skates missed the puck by an inch -- or less.

[SDS]

Both skates missed the puck by an inch -- or less.

 

unlike his shots... which missed the net by a foot or two.

[PASabreFan]

Hey Taro!

 

I found a working link to Rule 91, from the penalty shot page. It links to Rule 91 B.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20000310035305/nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule91.htm#b

[PASabreFan]

unlike his shots... which missed the net by a foot or two.

That was cold.

[Taro T]

Ooh, ahh, Taro on the warpath, ooh, ahh.

 

I'm not sure why Gleason assigns so much blame to Holzinger. Holzinger had Hull lined up and went flying through the crease to hit him, but Hull was backing up and Zinger barely missed him. Watching that overhead angle, it's unbelievable that Brian never kicked the puck. Both skates missed the puck by an inch -- or less.

I don't blame 'Zinger for missing Hull nearly as much as I blame him for getting in Gregson's way so Gregson couldn't figure out if Hull was in the @#%%#$@ crease.

[shrader]

Jesus.

 

I'm a bit late on this response, but anyway, I'm not trying to spin conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory here. I just remember it being the popular belief that the memo was created after the fact. I wouldn't put it past any league to do something like that and I'd probably do the same exact thing if I was in their shoes. As Taro mentioned, they wanted to avoid some embarrassment. They were going to get it either way, but admitting the mistake would have been far worse for the league. The only result would have been nothing but major headaches, far worse than any complaints from the people of Buffalo. Really, if I'm going to blame anyone, it's whoever was responsible for the media being on the ice immediately, whether it's some random security guard or an NHL higher up who signals the ok. Once they were out there, that was it. There was no going back.

 

But really, I'm amazed that people are still going over this. It's done and it will never change. The only result of this conversation is anger. I know some people will never let go, but I'm over it.

[rickshaw]

Every other goal scored like that all season long was not counted. The NHL blew the call. The play was not reviewed. It was 1 am and the ice was covered with media and championship t shirts less than 60 seconds later. So they just didn't make the call.

 

The NHL changed the rule the very next day and went into damage control. In the end, they didn't care.

 

It's too bad. But it's one of the reasons hockey is looked down upon as a second rate sport. Other leagues will admit their errors and apologize. I think, as a fan, I could have accepted the loss more if the league said they blew it.

 

Oh well, it's over. And how did Holzinger ever make the NHL???

[shrader]

It's too bad. But it's one of the reasons hockey is looked down upon as a second rate sport. Other leagues will admit their errors and apologize. I think, as a fan, I could have accepted the loss more if the league said they blew it.

 

As far as I know, no other league has had an issue like this happen during a championship deciding game. They may admit mistakes in season (which the NHL also does), but they haven't had to face this problem. They can't be compared until they face a similar circumstance. Personally, I'd expect them to take the same exact path the NHL did.

[Sabre Dance]

I'm a bit late on this response, but anyway, I'm not trying to spin conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory here. I just remember it being the popular belief that the memo was created after the fact. I wouldn't put it past any league to do something like that and I'd probably do the same exact thing if I was in their shoes. As Taro mentioned, they wanted to avoid some embarrassment. They were going to get it either way, but admitting the mistake would have been far worse for the league. The only result would have been nothing but major headaches, far worse than any complaints from the people of Buffalo. Really, if I'm going to blame anyone, it's whoever was responsible for the media being on the ice immediately, whether it's some random security guard or an NHL higher up who signals the ok. Once they were out there, that was it. There was no going back.

 

But really, I'm amazed that people are still going over this. It's done and it will never change. The only result of this conversation is anger. I know some people will never let go, but I'm over it.

 

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the thing that always struck me as odd was that Brian Burke and Colin Campbell spent the entire next day on the radio and in front of TV cameras explaining why the goal was good, citing the "memo" etc. If the goal was as good as the league said, why not just say: 1) the goal was reviewed 2) it fit criteria outlined in memo # whatever and 3) the goal was good in the post-game press conference and leave it at that. Every attempt at an explanation of why the goal was good sounded less and less believable.

 

Regardless, it IS ten years later and things are not going to change. We tend to forget that disallowing the goal would have meant even MORE overtime. The Stars could still have scored to win the Cup. Even if the goal was waived off and the Sabres managed to score, it would have only forced a game 7 back in Dallas. The Stars were the better team in that match-up and I could not imagine the Sabres going into Dallas and pulling the upset.

 

In regard to Hull's comments, he could never say, "Yeah, the goal shouldn't have counted". It was the Cup-winning goal - he has to support it's validity. It also stands to reason that he would consider it to be his "best moment" - who hasn't dreamed of scoring the Cup-winning goal in OT? (Even so, it still wrankles me a bit - I was never a big fan of either Hull, Brett or Bobby) :thumbdown:

[shrader]

Maybe it's just me being a Sabres fan and not wanting to think about it, but every time I hear Brett Hull's name, I think of the year he put up 86. That's why I don't put much weight into it being his career defining moment. 3 straight seasons of 70+ goals does a lot to define a career.

[Taro T]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the thing that always struck me as odd was that Brian Burke and Colin Campbell spent the entire next day on the radio and in front of TV cameras explaining why the goal was good, citing the "memo" etc. If the goal was as good as the league said, why not just say: 1) the goal was reviewed 2) it fit criteria outlined in memo # whatever and 3) the goal was good in the post-game press conference and leave it at that. Every attempt at an explanation of why the goal was good sounded less and less believable.

 

Regardless, it IS ten years later and things are not going to change. We tend to forget that disallowing the goal would have meant even MORE overtime. The Stars could still have scored to win the Cup. Even if the goal was waived off and the Sabres managed to score, it would have only forced a game 7 back in Dallas. The Stars were the better team in that match-up and I could not imagine the Sabres going into Dallas and pulling the upset.

 

In regard to Hull's comments, he could never say, "Yeah, the goal shouldn't have counted". It was the Cup-winning goal - he has to support it's validity. It also stands to reason that he would consider it to be his "best moment" - who hasn't dreamed of scoring the Cup-winning goal in OT? (Even so, it still wrankles me a bit - I was never a big fan of either Hull, Brett or Bobby) :thumbdown:

Assuming 2 things: 1, that the Stars would be able to ice the same lineup they went with in Game 6, which was not a given as both Modano and Hull both would have been questionable at best for Game 7; (Yes, I realize they both were playing through their injuries in Game 6, but after a day or 2 of having new injuries tighten up it wasn't a given that they'd both go; I'd expect they'd've both played but each would have been 80% tops. The reports after Game 6 were that neither would have been a definite back in Big D, 'though I expected them to play, I doubt we would have seen Hull barrel over the blue line and then rip a slapper past Dom from the faceoff circle. Take a bit off Hull's game, and I liked the Sabres' chances.)

 

and 2, that having the OT goal scored on him (after only minutes or hours after thinking he'd won the Stanley Cup) wouldn't affect Bats play as much as having stoned Miro and Zhoey in Game 4 affected his play in Games 5&6.

 

The Sabres weren't supposed to win Game 1 in Dallas either. Definitely not saying they'd've won Game 7 (nor Game 6 for that matter), but I liked their chances a whole lot better getting to actually play 1 or both than after the league AWARDED the Stars the Stanley Cup.

[PASabreFan]

Every other goal scored like that all season long was not counted. The NHL blew the call. The play was not reviewed. It was 1 am and the ice was covered with media and championship t shirts less than 60 seconds later. So they just didn't make the call.

 

The NHL changed the rule the very next day and went into damage control. In the end, they didn't care.

 

It's too bad. But it's one of the reasons hockey is looked down upon as a second rate sport. Other leagues will admit their errors and apologize. I think, as a fan, I could have accepted the loss more if the league said they blew it.

 

Oh well, it's over. And how did Holzinger ever make the NHL???

 

Can you say for sure no goals like that were counted after the memo came out? I don't know how you can possibly say that.

 

The refs did go stand by the glass for a period of time. Someone with a tape of the game might be able to time it. It wasn't long, but it's not like Hull scored, the refs skated off the ice and the doors opened. Was there a review? If there was, it was damn short.