1999; Dallas Stars

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Devils S.Niedermayer, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. Devils S.Niedermayer

    Devils S.Niedermayer Registered User

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pretty sure it fits in here, if not sorry.

    1999 when the Stars won the Stanley Cup against the Sabers, there was a rule: if you stepped in the goalie's crease even a half a millimeter of your skate when in and you scored, there would be no goal. All year they would stop the game and review the goal if the player was near the crease. So, 1999 Stanley Cup playoff finals, Dallas Stars Vs Buffalo Sabers the goalies were, Buffalo: Dominik Hasek and the Stars: Ed Belfour. Brett Hull shoots and his skate was on the crease. The refs didn't review it or nothing! Knowing Hasek he didn't argue. So Dallas wins their one and only cup because of bad refs.

    I'm not a Sabers fan, but this is beyond favoritisms for one team. To late now to make a call, that was in 1999.
     
  2. VanIslander

    VanIslander Don't waste my time

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    26,988
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Trophy Points:
    170
    let's not anglicize the spelling of "Sabres"

    but let's get pissed off all over again at the countless (even playoffs!) calls made with that crease rule that year :rant: OT game six of the Finals no less... probably the worst ending to a season in professional sports history... gawd that sucked

    what the hell does that mean?
     
  3. Seabass

    Seabass Onward and Upward

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Home Page:
    That was the main problem. The video review was going on as the Stars were celebrating the win.
     
  4. Allen Degenerate

    Allen Degenerate Embrace the Hate Sponsor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    6,401
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver.co
    Slightly off topic, but did anyone find it funny that Brett Hull was complaining about the video review being wrong on the Alfredsson goal?
     
  5. Masao

    Masao Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,097
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Home Page:
    The crease rule was stupidity beyond words. This is the kind of idea you get when you start smoking a sharpie isntead of writing things with it.
     
  6. Fish on The Sand

    Fish on The Sand Untouchable

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    61,356
    Likes Received:
    795
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Nanaimo
    Home Page:
    they weren't, but Hasek was. I happen to think that had they disallowed the goal(which they should have), Dallas would have still won the cup. Maybe not that night, but in game 7 for sure.
     
  7. MS

    MS Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    24,457
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Even more stupid than the effect it had was the fact that it never made the slightest bit of sense. That's what got to me the most at the time, and still makes my head hurt now.

    Has anyone ever seen a goalie get injured on a play where an opposing player skated into him when the puck wasn't right there? Basically there are only two ways a goalie can really get hurt by an opposing player - 1) guy cut in off the wing, takes the puck to the net, and crashes into the goalie, and 2) puck is underneath the goalie, and players end up piling on top of him. In both those cases, the crease rule doesn't apply, and if the puck goes in, it's a goal.

    It was a stupid kneejerk reaction to one injury (Kypreos on Fuhr, where the puck was in the crease, and if it had squirted into the net, it would have still been a goal under the crease rule) during a year where there were several freak injuries to goalies that made it look like an epidemic. Richter tore his groin doing the splits, Vanbiesbrouck had his hand stepped on attempting a pokecheck, etc.

    So to remedy a non-problem, the league came up with a non-solution with no hope of fixing anything that screwed up the sport for two years.

    It's right up there with the decision at the height of the dead-puck era to shrink the neutral zone to make more room behind the net 'because Gretzky was so effective there!' So when lack of space in the neutral zone is one of the game's biggest problems, try to help scoring by cramming more players into a smaller space. And completely fail to understand that Gretzky's success behind the net had absolutely nothing to do with how much space was between the net and the boards.
     
  8. Bear of Bad News

    Bear of Bad News HFBoards Escape Goat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    699
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Windsor
    The number of things wrong with your post makes it hard to pick just one, but I'm going to try to focus on this.

    Supposing the Hull goal was disallowed, why does that automatically give the cup to Buffalo? Why couldn't Dallas have scored later in the Game Six overtime? Or won Game Seven?
     
  9. FissionFire

    FissionFire Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    11,608
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Occupation:
    Moisture Specialist
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Home Page:
    Dallas would have won that series, barring an Ed Belfour meltdown (which is certainly possible). There is no reason to be shocked when rules in the NHL are interpreted one way during the season, but differently in the playoffs. It's alwaysbeen that ay, and it always will be that way.
     
  10. GSK*

    GSK* Guest

    Same thing for the Tampa Bay Stanley Cup...

    The goal of the Flames shouldn't have been refused.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"