was hull’s foot in the crease or not

[gumgum]

was it in the crease when the puck went in or not? and does it matter? according to hull, the rule had been changed before then.

Click to read more...

 

[Dominance]

A couple decades too late for this discussion.

 

[GlitchMarner]

[MOD]

The Stars could have won the game anyway. If they had lost, they would have been the favorites in game seven.

 

[gumgum]

A couple decades too late for this discussion.

i’m watching it right now (they recorded it)

 

[GlitchMarner]

And I HATED that stupid ******* rule!

Just like I hate that coaches can challenge offsides.

 

[Mikeshane]

The "goal" should have been called back, asterisk Cup.

 

[rent free]

yah it was in the crease and yah it should not have been a goal but no it was not overturned. buffalo woulda lost game 7 anyways so the pain happened quicker

 

[Future GOAT]

Yes it was.

 

[GlitchMarner]

yah it was in the crease and yah it should not have been a goal but no it was not overturned. buffalo woulda lost game 7 anyways so the pain happened quicker

Forget about game seven; the Stars still could have won THAT game.

I really hated Hasek and the Sabres back then... haha.

 

[Jumptheshark]

A couple decades too late for this discussion.

this is december 10th 2017?


just curious or have we all gone back 20 years

 

[Kreegz2]

Didn't the Bruins have goal disallowed under identical circumstances in game 6 of their first round series in 1998 that would have won them the game and extended the series? I vaguely remember this but can't find a clip anywhere on youtube.

 

[LeafChief]

Buffalo gonna Buffalo.

 

[GlitchMarner]

1999 wasn't 20 years ago.

 

[gumgum]

why did hull lie and say the rule was changed before that goal? i have seen an interview where he said this

 

[MisterNoItAll]

Who cares if it was. His foot in or out of the crease didn’t impede Hasek from making the save.

 

[Viqsi]

Oh, good, because this needed to be relegislated nearly two decades later.

 

[Johnny Engine]

why did hull lie and say the rule was changed before that goal? i have seen an interview where he said this

You're likely thinking of this article, where Hull says the league changed the specific clause in the rule that dealt with players having control of the puck in the crease, rather than the crease rule itself. I don't have any evidence that this isn't true, though if someone could find some documentation of what the rule said, and a record of changes to the rule, that would help.

 

[HisIceness]

1999 wasn't 20 years ago.

Well it will be in two years. Damn time flies.

Anyways, Dallas won end of story.

 

[Big Phil]

Think of it from the perspective of the Stars fans. Imagine your team scores a goal and in almost every other season in NHL history it is legal, but it is called back, the other team wins in overtime and then you lose Game 7. Does anyone want that scenario for hockey?

The NHL is stupid. They are run by a bunch of greedy owners who look out for their own interests and have a leprechaun stand in front of the mic (yes it is who you are thinking it is) and spout their dirty work with tricky lawyer language. They were stupid then, they are stupid now. How do I know? Google interviews and articles back when the powers to be in the game were defending the crease rule. One name will stick out like a sore thumb, Brian Burke.

He was Bettman's right hand man back then. This was not something that came out of the blue either, everyone hated that rule and a monkey could see that it was sucking life out of the game at a record pace. But the suits didn't want to admit they were wrong. Burke time and time again defended that rule stating that eventually the players would get used to it and it would work.

Before Hull's goal in 1999 that permanently changed the rule back there were lots of issues that were outlandish. The Red Wings once had a goal called back despite scoring into an empty net. Think about that. Boston probably lost a playoff series in 1998 when they had an overtime goal called back that would have given them a 2-1 series lead. If you want to see a coach as mad as I've ever seen then watch Pat Burns' reaction after that goal was called back. Gretzky criticized the rule in the 1997 playoffs even though it benefitted his team, the Rangers at one point.

So there were lots of issues and tons of complaints leading up to Hull's goal.

As for the goal, I am fine with it. Dallas was the better team and they made it to the final the next year and Buffalo was nowhere to be seen. So to the Sabres fans, get over it. I get it, no Super Bowls, no Cups, but if you had a better city for sports you wouldn't be crying plain and simple.

 

[gumgum]

You're likely thinking of this article, where Hull says the league changed the specific clause in the rule that dealt with players having control of the puck in the crease, rather than the crease rule itself. I don't have any evidence that this isn't true, though if someone could find some documentation of what the rule said, and a record of changes to the rule, that would help.

yeah, that would be cool

 

[reckoning]

The goal shouldn't have counted, but bad calls happen. I'm a Sabres fan, but I've never denied that Dallas were the legitimate Cup winners. Buffalo was lucky that Hasek carried them as far as he did that spring. If they had been better at a number of different things, they would have won. A bad call was only one part of the loss.

And for everybody asking "How long have Buffalo fans been complaining about this?"; the answer is six less years than Leaf fans have been complaining about the Gretzky high stick on Gilmour.

 

[The Panther]

The thing about the "Was his foot (toe) in the crease?" question, for me, always comes down to: WHO CARES?

I say this not because getting the rules correct isn't important, because it is... except when the rule itself is idiotic, as this rule most certainly was. I don't care what the letter of the rule said in the mid-to-late-'90s -- THAT HULL GOAL WAS A GOOD GOAL BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD. That is all I care about. Now, if Hull's entire leg had been in the crease, or if he had interfered with Hasek in any way, I could understand fans making a big deal out of it for years to follow. But it wasn't and he didn't. At any time in NHL history from 1917 to 1995, or 1999 to 2017, that was a perfectly good goal and it should also have been considered a good goal then (as it ultimately was).

Boston probably lost a playoff series in 1998 when they had an overtime goal called back that would have given them a 2-1 series lead. If you want to see a coach as mad as I've ever seen then watch Pat Burns' reaction after that goal was called back. Gretzky criticized the rule in the 1997 playoffs even though it benefitted his team, the Rangers at one point.

Oh God, that goal called back on Boston was the stupidest thing ever. Shame on the NHL for that.

Gretzky likely mentioned the rule because every single goal in the NYR/Philly series was challenged for 'foot in the crease'. Made a mockery of the sport.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

 

[HeScores27]

That crease rule and the trapezoid rule are two of the stupidest rules in recent memory. That said, stupid rule or not, if everyone has to abide by it, it should be enforced at all times... if you can envision a time when that rule would be awkward to enforced because it's stupid, maybe you should rethink the rule altogether.

 

[sr edler]

View attachment 87415

Hasek: ”Your foot. In the crease. Hahaha.”