Toronto Lost the North and Well Beaten SabreSpace Horses

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You have to understand, it's Taro's way or the highway. He knows the intricacies of the rule book in 1999, the definition of control (both the legalistic definition and how it was practically applied by the refs), review procedures in place at the time (including the procedures for considering the clarifications in the memo), what league staff was in the building and who did what and why, who ordered the Zamboni doors to open, the mindset of the league staff and how they lied and then covered it up, and so on. The width and breadth and depth of His understanding is remarkable, almost God-like.

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 

[Stoner]

OK, it's a pizza as soon as you put your hands in the oven!

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I have no agenda. Do you? You're one who keeps bringing it up, using the loaded word "awarded."

It is entertaining, I'll give you that. Halfway through another of your epic cold and clinical breakdowns of why the call was wrong, it hit me: this can't be what sports is about. I'm now considering the human side of it. How Bryan Lewis handled the situation is pretty fascinating. Unfortunately, neither one of us can be in his head to know the truth, and as far as I know, he ain't talking. Maybe there'll be a deathbed statement.

Rosegoal.

What did he say? No goal? Rosegoal? He belongs to the angels? The ages? The aged?

 

6 minutes ago, 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 

The timing of this was a little weird 

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

OK, it's a pizza as soon as you put your hands in the oven!

Schrodinger's Pizza?

[Taro T]

17 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You have to understand, it's Taro's way or the highway. He knows the intricacies of the rule book in 1999, the definition of control (both the legalistic definition and how it was practically applied by the refs), review procedures in place at the time (including the procedures for considering the clarifications in the memo), what league staff was in the building and who did what and why, who ordered the Zamboni doors to open, the mindset of the league staff and how they lied and then covered it up, and so on. The width and breadth and depth of His understanding is remarkable, almost God-like.

 

You crack me up.  You really do.

You make most of this sound like some ancient mysticism, but it really isn't.

The rulebook was published & quite clear in how a crease review was to be handled.  Nothing mystic there except for an ability to read.

At least 2 of the "mystery memo" clarifications were published as you yourself presented.  Another pair of items that an ability to read and comprehend make quite decypherable.

Control was also defined in the rulebook as you have admitted in the past to reading yourself.  You even claimed to understand it and agree with your fellow traveller's interpretation.

Comments from league higher ups, the refs, & Lindy Ruff were all published at the time.  They all could be read.

The comments about why the doors were opened (& also, while not discussed in this thread, though discussed in the past, about how the league wouldn't allow the replay to be shown after the controversy began) come directly from inside sources.  Will not reveal who they are, but the info is real & accurate.

The mindset of the league higher ups is pretty plain to decipher once one simply looks at the course of events as they happened and the subsequent attempts at CYA.  Feel free to offer conflicting hypotheses.  Just please support those with facts and not wild hypotheticals. 

Just because YOU seem unable to accept what you've already agreed with - that under the rules in place at the time the play should have been declared "NO GOAL" doesn't mean the rest of us are engaging in the process of making #### up.

 

[Taro T]

22 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I have no agenda. Do you? You're one who keeps bringing it up, using the loaded word "awarded."

It is entertaining, I'll give you that. Halfway through another of your epic cold and clinical breakdowns of why the call was wrong, it hit me: this can't be what sports is about. I'm now considering the human side of it. How Bryan Lewis handled the situation is pretty fascinating. Unfortunately, neither one of us can be in his head to know the truth, and as far as I know, he ain't talking. Maybe there'll be a deathbed statement.

Rosegoal.

What did he say? No goal? Rosegoal? He belongs to the angels? The ages? The aged?

Keep telling yourself that.  You might even begin to believe it.

 

[Taro T]

And one (hopefully, but most likely not) post script to this.  PA keeps talking up how noble Lewis was in all this.  How noble was it for them to wait at least 15 minutes and nearly 20 to tell the Sabres (& it took a full 20 minutes to tell the world via their broadcast partners) why they considered the play to have resulted in a legal goal?

If this was sooooo clear cut in their minds, shouldn't they have been able to tell people how they'd reached their decision within moments of (allegedly) having come to this decision right after the goal was scored?

There was no PA announcement that the goal had been reviewed and determined to be a good goal.  Ruff & Peca stood no more than 4' from Bettman while Gary stood on the ice waiting to award hardware to the team he'd deemed the victors.  Why couldn't he tell them why the play was allowed to stand as a good goal?  Why flat out rudely ignore them?

How does it take Lewis almost 20 minutes to get to the Sabres if the decision had been made earlier?

Even from the "human side" of this event, it's not a good look for these "noble" (ha!) gentlemen.

[Stoner]

“The mentally disturbed do not employ the Principle of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts. They shoot for the baroque.”
― Philip K. Dick, VALIS

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

“The mentally disturbed do not employ the Principle of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts. They shoot for the baroque.”
― Philip K. Dick, VALIS

Congratulations on finally having your condition diagnosed.  That's the 1st step towards successful treatment of any malady.

[Stoner]

That is, most likely: under extreme duress, Lewis blew the call. Less likely: he nobly went rogue. Least likely: Bettman pulled all the strings to save the broadcast networks some money and/or ensure a southern franchise had a Cup, starting within 10 seconds of the goal when a flunky was instructed to open the gates of hell.

[JoeSchmoe]

Hey guys, it's okay. Toronto lost... and lost ugly. They're not possibly coming to Buffalo anymore and we can all get along again.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

That is, most likely: under extreme duress, Lewis blew the call. Less likely: he nobly went rogue. Least likely: Bettman pulled all the strings to save the broadcast networks some money and/or ensure a southern franchise had a Cup, starting within 10 seconds of the goal when a flunky was instructed to open the gates of hell.

You continue to overcomplicate this.  (Apparently, whatever, if any, medications you've been prescribed based upon your self diagnosis from above haven't started working yet. 😉 )

You keep overlooking the obvious.  It never dawned on them in the early hours of June 20, 1999 that there could be anything wrong with the goal.  So the league officials said to open the gates.

And then, when it got back to them that it wasn't a good goal, which was brought to their attention almost, but not as quickly as the gates had been opened, they had the "oh, ####" moment.

THAT realization that they'd ####ed up led to all of the rest.

 

Lewis had never intended to make the call, though you keep insisting that he heroically stepped up and somehow reviewed the goal in UNDER 10 SECONDS.  The gates were opened within 10 seconds of the puck entering the net.  Htf did he review the play that quickly?

But agree that he is the most likely culprit to have told the VGJ to say there was a good goal when he had been asked by the ref if Hull was in the crease before the puck.  Mighty ####ing heroic of him. <_<  

 

YOU keep making this into some ridiculous conspiracy before the fact that the league intentionally got the Stars the silverware.  That is ludicrous.  Where the conspiracy comes in is, AFTER the league realized they ####ed up, they had 2 choices.  Do what the NFL does when people come onto the field before a game has truly been decided and shoo the people away from where the game gets played regardless of how bad a look it is OR pretend the goal was good and stick to that story.  

They chose the 2nd option & the rest is history.

 

Though almost everybody in the rink thought the play was likely legit because of the way the bodies were around Hull & Hasek, there were actually people in the stands who could tell the play wasn't legit.  Most all were in that section behind the net which was right by the Zamboni doors.  The staff running the doors didn't want to open them because they knew there was a real possibility the call would go the Sabres way because Hull was in the crease before the puck was.  The league insisted the doors open.

Had the doors remained closed, all your wishful thinking about how a heroic Bryan Lewis might have saved the day wouldn't have been necessary because the ref would've reviewed the play and declared "NO GOAL."

And ALL (or nearly all) your wild conspiracy theories go away because the game would've continued and almost definitely would've reached a conclusion by now.

[Taro T]

Shockingly, Mr. Conspiracy Theory doesn't have a response.  Surprising absolutely nobody.

[dudacek]

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.

[Stoner]

7 hours ago, Taro T said:

Shockingly, Mr. Conspiracy Theory doesn't have a response.  Surprising absolutely nobody.

I hope people see your true colors if they haven't already. Encyclopedias are fact-checked and objective, by the way.

I'm not the one talking about opening the Zamboni doors quickly to prevent a review, CBC and ESPN calling the shots, coverups after the season or Bettman "deeming" that the Stars should win.

It's thinking like that that just cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives.

[Stoner]

And I never said Lewis reviewed the goal in under 10 seconds. You're making stuff up. I said he made the call quickly.

You're all hung up on the doors opening. People also entered the ice through the Stars' bench by the way.

Lewis reffed 1,000 games in the NHL including eight finals. In an era without review. He watched Hull's goal live, he wrote the memo. In his mind it wasn't a tough call. There was plenty of time to watch a replay. Not every review had to take five minutes.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Maybe you guys should take this tete a tete wanna be to DM someplace? 

[Stoner]

Where in the world is Taro T?

[SwampD]

On 6/1/2021 at 3:44 AM, PerreaultForever said:

Guess this thread can get locked 🙂

 

...and you wanted me to lock this thread.

[Taro T]

4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I hope people see your true colors if they haven't already. Encyclopedias are fact-checked and objective, by the way.

I'm not the one talking about opening the Zamboni doors quickly to prevent a review, CBC and ESPN calling the shots, coverups after the season or Bettman "deeming" that the Stars should win.

It's thinking like that that just cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives.

You are playing your normal game of being intentionally dense, mischaracterizing statements & refusing to answer questions.  It's old, but it does seem to be your thing, so it is what it is.

They didn't open the doors to prevent a review, they decided not to waive off the goal because they'd already acted like the game was over by a clean goal having been scored (it wasn't) & didn't want to deal with having to pull everybody off the ice.

They chose the expedient path & not the right path.

Unfortunately for you, this thread is now bookmarked so when you try to rope me back into this pointless melodrama, can just respond back with a link.

[Stoner]

The person Taro needs to debate is Bryan Lewis. As of 2019, when he was interviewed by Vogl, he was still working in officiating. You'd think the monstrous thing he did in 1999 would have led to his being blackballed. Anyway, he doesn't agree with Taro that he got the call wrong, let alone all the conspiratorial nonsense.

---

https://theathletic.com/1017120/2019/06/07/this-is-a-tripping-penalty-missed-ex-official-bryan-lewis-on-another-call-that-puts-the-refs-under-scrutiny/

The Athletic called on Lewis to explain what might have happened during Game 5 in Boston and to see if anything had changed since Game 6 of the 1999 final, when Hull scored with his foot in the crease to lift Dallas to the Cup and sink Buffalo into a “No Goal” dismay that lingers to this day. Here’s the conversation:

Now, I know you weren’t on the ice for the Brett Hull goal back in Buffalo, but it’s been 20 years and it still pops up whenever something like this happens. Is there …

No, you made it pop up. I didn’t. You did. (Laughs.)

True.

And you know what? At the end of the day here, we’re talking about something here where one is a mechanic and one is a judgment call.

The mechanic of that one — and I don’t know what I did two days ago, never mind 20 years ago — but we’ve had situations that happened, even during that season, that were identical in nature and ruled in the same manner. I appreciate the fact that people don’t like it, or they feel they were cheated, whatever the language would be. There has to be some comfort in the fact that as you walk through the rulebook — and in that particular case then, I walked through the rulebook that night. I never left the arena until Gary Meagher, our PR guy, said, “OK, it’s good to go.”

A rebound off the goalpost, a rebound off the goalie doesn’t change possession, and there you look at it, all right, it’s a tough mechanic. And I read from the rulebook that night — I remember doing that, reading from the rulebook. You don’t know it, you don’t like it, everybody feels you’ve been wronged or whatever have you, you have to work out and say, “Well, it was right. If that happened again, I would do it the same way again.”

Where you look at a situation here, we’re talking about judgment, and as a result of looking at something, you might say, “You know what? Maybe I wouldn’t do it that way the next time.” So for me, it’s not really fair to draw a comparison. One is a mechanic based on the rulebook that’s clearly described, and the other one is judgment aspect.

That makes sense. So, as you mentioned, looking at the mechanic issue of it for the Hull one, there is nothing really to change from 20 years ago? Or nothing you would alter?

No. And you know what? First of all, it was a very tough rule to deal with anyway with your foot in the crease. And I’m going through that in another league. I’m a referee chief of university hockey in Ontario, and we’re going through that because that’s a common rule that shows up in the playoffs. Everybody is trying to get the goalie off his game, all right? And when I’m at a game now, I actually chart how many guys are active in and around the crease. I’ve learned over the years that’s a style of play by some teams.

That’s one of the rules that we are looking at this year at the university level is should we tighten this up? To use international hockey as an example, if you go and you stand in the crease for any reason, they stop the play and take the faceoff outside. That’s a significant rule option, but it’s there, with the message being to the attacking players: “Stay the heck out of the crease and let the goalie do his job.”

Which was always the intent. I don’t want to say it was a good rule or a bad rule because my job was to make sure they got written in the rulebook and we told the officials what to do with it. … If I had a chance to take the tape and walk you through the rebound, the bounce off the goalpost or the bounce off the goalie and then show you the rulebook, I would like to think you would understand it better.

I actually said to a guy today — we were talking about a conservation situation for a guy who wants to add an addition onto his house. I’m a politician up here in town, as well, and I said, “Here’s the rules, and here’s the regulations. These are what they are, but you don’t have to like them.” And that would be the same thing in Buffalo. Here’s what it is. It’s tough to explain. You don’t have to like it.

[Taro T]

Post 6 is where it begins and post 12 is where it starts to veer off course

[Stoner]

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.

Edited June 4, 2021 by PASabreFan

[Taro T]

16 minutes 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.

Sigh.

You aren't interested in the "same old same old."  Good for you.

Can't really say it is even minimally surprising that the guy that was lying nearly 22 years ago, sticks with the claim that what he told the world then was truthful.  You've read the relevant material.  You don't need to take his word, nor mine, on whether the play was resolved properly.  Read it again.  And come to your own conclusion.  You've done that in the past, but now seem to trust somebody who has a vested interest in holding firm to his story more or less (he's changed some details).

Don't know why you put more faith into his words than your own eyes, but you go do you.

Will stick with the "same old, same old" because nothing either of us say will alter what rules were in place at the time nor how the play progressed.  The facts are the facts and they are immutable.  

Don't really care whether you agree with my hypothesis of why events unfolded after the play as they did.  If you want to believe there was some nobility in Lewis' & Bettman's position, so be it.   You have tried to convince us of that, but IMHO Occam's Razor gives a simpler rationale for why they reacted the way they did.  Namely, when everybody was really tired, they had a screw up, and rather than correct the screw up, they chose to run with it instead.  (Call it a conspiracy theory if you'd like.  Don't see it as one, but don't really care what you call it.  At the end of the day, it just seems to be a way to try to cloud the issue with irrelevant points.)

But, again, at the end of the day, WHY they did it doesn't really matter.  What matters is that the play did not result in a valid goal and it should have been disallowed.  And, no matter how much you try to refocus the discussion, that is where it belongs.

And that is, IMHO, all that should matter to Sabres fans. 

 

[steveoath]

15 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.

It's an interesting take for sure. But I felt that Sean McIndoe's thoughts on the Puck Soup podcast were very insightful. Essentially disagreeing completely with the above.

[Puck Soup] As The Leafs Blow  🅴 #puckSoup 
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/123907092

The analytics comments come in at 27m30s. But the whole podcast is worth a listen. My favourite hockey podcast by far.

 

 

[SwampD]

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.

 

50 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Sigh.

You aren't interested in the "same old same old."  Good for you.

Can't really say it is even minimally surprising that the guy that was lying nearly 22 years ago, sticks with the claim that what he told the world then was truthful.  You've read the relevant material.  You don't need to take his word, nor mine, on whether the play was resolved properly.  Read it again.  And come to your own conclusion.  You've done that in the past, but now seem to trust somebody who has a vested interest in holding firm to his story more or less (he's changed some details).

Don't know why you put more faith into his words than your own eyes, but you go do you.

Will stick with the "same old, same old" because nothing either of us say will alter what rules were in place at the time nor how the play progressed.  The facts are the facts and they are immutable.  

Don't really care whether you agree with my hypothesis of why events unfolded after the play as they did.  If you want to believe there was some nobility in Lewis' & Bettman's position, so be it.   You have tried to convince us of that, but IMHO Occam's Razor gives a simpler rationale for why they reacted the way they did.  Namely, when everybody was really tired, they had a screw up, and rather than correct the screw up, they chose to run with it instead.  (Call it a conspiracy theory if you'd like.  Don't see it as one, but don't really care what you call it.  At the end of the day, it just seems to be a way to try to cloud the issue with irrelevant points.)

But, again, at the end of the day, WHY they did it doesn't really matter.  What matters is that the play did not result in a valid goal and it should have been disallowed.  And, no matter how much you try to refocus the discussion, that is where it belongs.

And that is, IMHO, all that should matter to Sabres fans. 

 

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

Priceless.