was hull’s foot in the crease or not

[frisco]

It was clearly NO GOAL under the rules at that time. One thing interesting is Bryan Lewis, the NHL Director of Officiating at the time, was literally never heard from again. Retired in 2000 probably pressured out of the league. It was he who should have initiated review and came up with hurried the after the fact "explanation" of some memo that supposedly explained how Hull kept possession of the puck despite actually shooting it. Pretty much the low point of the NHL from a public relations point of view.

My Best-Carey

 

[Zegras Zebra]

Hull's foot was in the crease, based on the rules it shouldn't have counted. The rule was stupid and arguably one of the worst rules in NHL history. I remember hearing about the apparent "rule change" that Hull and others mentioned allowing the goal to count but I have nothing to add to help that conversation. NHL officials both in Toronto and referees on the ice still get a very high percentage of calls wrong to this day after reviewing the play for minutes at a time.

 

[The Panther]

Does anybody know the actual wording of the rule back then?

I mean, did it state explicitly how much of the foot needs to be in the crease for it to be "no goal"? For example, if Hull had two toes in and three toes out, was it a goal?

My memory is that a small part of his foot was on or slightly over the line.

 

[LightningStorm]

Does anybody know the actual wording of the rule back then?

I mean, did it state explicitly how much of the foot needs to be in the crease for it to be "no goal"? For example, if Hull had two toes in and three toes out, was it a goal?

My memory is that a small part of his foot was on or slightly over the line.

His whole left skate was in the crease, but his leg was sticking out so none of the rest of his body was above the crease. And the rule didn't state any specific amount that had to be in the crease, though Hull just barely being in it would've made a no goal call ticky tacky.

As for the rule itself, people often forget it was an offensive player can't enter the crease UNLESS he has control of the puck. So the right question isn't whether Hull had a foot in the crease (he did), but rather did he have control when he did. He did have control of the puck when entering the crease for his first shot, which Hasek stopped. The controversial part of the NHL's explanation afterwards was they said him shooting his initial shot then shooting in the rebound didn't constitute a loss of possession on Hull's part, thus meaning he didn't have to leave the crease after his initial shot in order to legally shoot in the rebound.

 

[The Panther]

Here we go!:

You are right -- it does appear his left skate was entirely inside the crease.

In any case, if that isn't a good goal in the NHL, then nothing is...

 

[Killion]

Here we go!:

You are right -- it does appear his left skate was entirely inside the crease.

In any case, if that isn't a good goal in the NHL, then nothing is...

Yeah, there we go, thanks for digging that up & posting it Panther.... And your right, this is well & truly on the NHL and speaks to the much more fundamental issue as to why in Hell did they lose their minds in the first place & introduce a crease that size in the first place? And we know the answer to that; Burke & others whining about how their Goaltenders were getting run, "someones gonna be killed". Utter nonsense. If a Goalie cant clear his crease & deal with traffic he shouldnt be playing in the NHL. In fact in my day he wouldnt make it much past Single A let alone Junior. Not long before that controversial goal & self inflicted disgrace, Hull would have been several feet outside of the crease, his left foot nowhere near the paint, a clean, good goal.

 

[NewUser293223]

Here we go!:

You are right -- it does appear his left skate was entirely inside the crease.

In any case, if that isn't a good goal in the NHL, then nothing is...

What a gif(t)!

It wasn't even Hull's skate that stopped Hasek from making a save. It was his own teammate Brian Holzinger who should have stayed the fug out of there. He kicks Hasek's catcher out of position with one skate, from which Hasek recovers, then he kicks the catcher out of position with the other skate, from which Hasek recovers much too late, and, what's done them Sabres in, Hasek had to get his pad out of Brian's way, which opens the net for the patient dude Brett.

What I got from this is:

1. Hull surely doesn't lack composure.

2. Hasek was one hell of a multitasker.

3. Brian Holzinger lacked both composure and the ability to multitask.

If I was Hasek, my first words back in the locker room wouldn't have been 'how many times I told you not to...' I would have gone for the 'where's my Sabre Brian and where's my sabre' part right away.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

This wasn't the first time that the referees missed this call in the playoffs.

2:13:

Yeah, there we go, thanks for digging that up & posting it Panther.... And your right, this is well & truly on the NHL and speaks to the much more fundamental issue as to why in Hell did they lose their minds in the first place & introduce a crease that size in the first place? And we know the answer to that; Burke & others whining about how their Goaltenders were getting run, "someones gonna be killed". Utter nonsense. If a Goalie cant clear his crease & deal with traffic he shouldnt be playing in the NHL. In fact in my day he wouldnt make it much past Single A let alone Junior. Not long before that controversial goal & self inflicted disgrace, Hull would have been several feet outside of the crease, his left foot nowhere near the paint, a clean, good goal.

The crease should act as a boundary for goaltender interference in today's game. This month alone, I've seen a few goals overturned because the goaltender left the crease and initiated contact with an opposing player. If a goaltender leaves the crease and makes contact with a player, any ensuing goal should be allowed. If it takes an increase of the size of the crease to a small degree in order to strictly enforce this, then so be it. The crease should have more than merely an aesthetic purpose.

To overturn a goal based on the placement of one's skate was always a mistake.

 

[sr edler]

Buffalo lost because they scored 1 goal in game 5 and 6 (or 0.5 goals over both games). In game 3 (an odd goal loss) they had 12 shots on goals. Didn't follow this finals but their best scorer (Miroslav Satan) had 1 secondary assist in 6 games in the finals. He missed games earlier in the playoffs against Ottawa and Toronto, and the whole series against Boston, and must have played injured. It worked getting by those Eastern Conference teams without a top scorer, but Dallas in the closing years of the 90s was a veritable juggernaut. If your best scorer is Stu Barnes your Cinderella run is bound to eventually crash into a brick wall.

 

[sr edler]

And yeah, what is Holzinger doing on that play?

 

[overg]

It was just a perfect storm of stupidity.

1. The rule was dumb in the first place. A ridiculous number of goals were called back that season for nothing more than a meaningless technical violation. Including, as mentioned *empty net goals*.

2. However, given that the rule was dumb, it was at least consistently called 99.9% of the time. If a player had so much as a toe in the crease, the goal was disallowed.

3. Which made the "Hull had control of the puck" argument absurd. I had never seen nor even heard of that interpretation of the rule the entire season, despite seeing dozens and dozens and dozens of goals called off. It was clear as day they fabricated that interpretation to justify the call, not the other way around.

4. And finally, even if that "control" rule had existed, it was a pretty huge stretch to argue that Hull had "control" of that rebound before he entered the crease.

Buffalo was hosed, big time, by a stupid rule which had been stupidly enforced the entire damn year except at the most important moment in the entire season. And I say that as someone who was pulling for Dallas.

The only good to come of it was the fact that rule was trashed before the next season began.

 

[Plural]

I just realized that Holzinger knocked Hasek's catcher twice in a row. Talk about bad luck...

 

[mbhhofr]

This:

As for the rule itself, people often forget it was an offensive player can't enter the crease UNLESS he has control of the puck. So the right question isn't whether Hull had a foot in the crease (he did), but rather did he have control when he did. He did have control of the puck when entering the crease for his first shot, which Hasek stopped. The controversial part of the NHL's explanation afterwards was they said him shooting his initial shot then shooting in the rebound didn't constitute a loss of possession on Hull's part, thus meaning he didn't have to leave the crease after his initial shot in order to legally shoot in the rebound.

 

[TheAngryHank]

My three thoughts.
Foot in the crease.
No goal.
Hasak was amazing.

 

[greyraven8]

It was just a perfect storm of stupidity.

1. The rule was dumb in the first place. A ridiculous number of goals were called back that season for nothing more than a meaningless technical violation. Including, as mentioned *empty net goals*.

2. However, given that the rule was dumb, it was at least consistently called 99.9% of the time. If a player had so much as a toe in the crease, the goal was disallowed.

3. Which made the "Hull had control of the puck" argument absurd. I had never seen nor even heard of that interpretation of the rule the entire season, despite seeing dozens and dozens and dozens of goals called off. It was clear as day they fabricated that interpretation to justify the call, not the other way around.

4. And finally, even if that "control" rule had existed, it was a pretty huge stretch to argue that Hull had "control" of that rebound before he entered the crease.

Buffalo was hosed, big time, by a stupid rule which had been stupidly enforced the entire damn year except at the most important moment in the entire season. And I say that as someone who was pulling for Dallas.

The only good to come of it was the fact that rule was trashed before the next season began.

Couldn't agree more with all of this.

I've been biting my tongue trying to ignore this thread every time it pops up at or near the top - I hope I can refrain after this.

The impression I got when I was watching it at the time, right or wrong, was once all the Dallas players poured onto the ice and the celebrations were in full swing they sure the hell didn't want to call anything back.

It was fait accompli.

 

[NewUser293223]

And yeah, what is Holzinger doing on that play?

Well, in retrospect, he probably should have done nothing at all rather than do what he did, but when you realize he knew there was no Sabre on the right to take care of Modano who was obviously getting ready for a pass / rebound, out of sheer desperation, he simply went in there, head first, hoping to make it harder for Hull to shoot well and to block Modano's potential rebound all at once.

It was gutsy in a way, but, again, in retrospect, he should have attacked Hull's body (maybe even take penalty) and he should have put some trust in Hasek and his ability to get hold of the puck (as Hasek, although on his belly, was obviously well aware of what is going on).

Although he meant well, he ended up making it easier for the Stars.

EDIT: While I saw the game, I just don't recall such details, but it's also possible that Holzinger should have had Modano all along and that he was the one to blame Mike got such a leeway. In that case, he really did ball up big time.

 

[Sadekuuro]

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).

Hard to disagree with that on its face, but in the context of the time, if that was a good goal then dozens of other significant goals that were wiped out were good as well. In a sport where the margin between winning and losing is so thin, it made a mockery of all previous results that were affected by the rule. Every other goal that was scored that postseason, everyone immediately held their breath wondering if anyone's skate blade was a nanometer into the crease, whereas that one--immediately apparent in real time that he was in the crease--nobody on the broadcast even mentioned it as a possible issue until it was way too late to do anything about it (IIRC it was several minutes later). One doubts they could have summoned the guts to review it right away, but there was zero chance after they'd let the celebration play out for that long. Their PR hatchet job afterward was just the cherry on top.

So while I think we can all agree that that was a totally awful rule, by the book of the day, Buffalo got jobbed. I fully expected them to lose Game 7 should they have eventually won Game 6, but they deserved the chance.

 

[BenchBrawl]

That was 20 years ago? Wow! Seems like yesterday.

I was a teenager back then, and I remember watching that game in my basement bedroom till late in the night.The goal was clearly bad from the standards and rules of that season, but "morally" it was a good hockey goal.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Doesn't matter. The NHL amended the rule before the goal that if you had possession of the puck when you crossed the line it was a legitimate goal.

 

[Cold Medicine]

Here we go!:

You are right -- it does appear his left skate was entirely inside the crease.

In any case, if that isn't a good goal in the NHL, then nothing is...

Watch Brett Hull's left skate. Hull's skate is completely outside the crease when he deliberately kicks the puck, which is also outside of the crease, to his stick. This move happens in every NHL game and it's pretty obvious that the player executing it is in control of puck. So his possession started outside of the crease and therefore he was legally allowed to enter the crease.

The famous still shot from this video makes it look like Hull skated into the crease to shoot a loose puck that was lying outside of the crease. If that were the case, it would not have been a legal goal. But that's not what happened. Hull still has possession as the puck travels between his skate and his stick. He didn't lose possession just because the puck it isn't touching his body or his stick.

 

[James Walker]

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.

I remember it well, but can't find video...Tim Taylor was not even close to being part of the play (described below).

IN OVERTIME, CAPS GET THE GOAL THAT COUNTS
May 3, 1998 Boston Bruins goal disallowed
Defenseman Sergei Gonchar scored two goals, making up for the offensively stymied forward corps. Goaltender Olaf Kolzig made 52 saves, including several that bailed Washington out of 10 Bruins power plays. And finally, six inches of Boston center Tim Taylor's skate blade slipped into the crease on what appeared to be the winning goal for the Bruins in the first overtime, nullifying the play.
...
By the time Per Axelsson appeared to score the winning goal with about four minutes remaining in the first overtime, several Washington players looked tired. Both teams headed toward their dressing rooms, and trash from the 15,520 fans rained down on the ice. But both referee Paul Devorski and linesman Jay Sharrers said they saw Taylor's foot in the crease when Axelsson knocked the puck past Kolzig, and they went to the video goal judge for a review.
The goal was disallowed, and both teams sat near their benches for about five minutes while an arena crew cleared the ice.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

League memo defines crease rule - 10:44 ET; June 23, 1999

TORONTO - On March 25th the NHL sent to all team general managers, league supervisors, on-ice officials and video goal judges a memorandum containing "definitive procedures" concerning potential crease violations on goals.

The memorandum said it superceded all previous ruling, "including Bryan Lewis' memoranda dated March 4, 1999."
...
-"An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. Result: Goal is allowed. The offside-rule rationale applies." (A player actually controlling the puck who crosses the line ahead of the puck is not considered off-side.)
...
The Sabres said Tuesday they received the memorandum.

"We did receive the memo," team spokesman Mike Gilbert said from Buffalo, N.Y. "It was sent to (general manager) Darcy Regier and also sent to (coach) Lindy Ruff."

Neither have commented on it.

"At this point in time it doesn't do any good (to comment)," Gilbert said. "It's not going to change the outcome of the game.

"We've basically referred all calls to the NHL."



Note that part where Gilbert said the Sabres didn't see any point in commenting. This article was published THE SAME DAY that Lindy Ruff went out in front of 20,000 Sabres fans in downtown Buffalo and led them in a chant of "No goal! No goal!".

 

[FerrisRox]

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.

I don't get why this is a question. The game was televised, we've all seen the video clips. There is no debate as to whether it was in the crease or not, you can simply watch the footage to see if it was or not.

 

[sr edler]

It's debatable whether Hull's foot was actually in the crease. In the televised footage we can clearly see that the skate that belongs to Hull appears to be within the boundaries of the crease, when he delivers the fatal blow to the Stanley Cup hopes and dreams of the Buffalo Sabres, but what is not as clear is whether Hull's foot is actually in his skate at the time when he delivers the puck from his stick and into the goal cage guarded by Buffalo Sabres avant-garde belly swimming goaltender Dominik Hasek. The brief passing by, between Hull and said crease, by Buffalo Sabres player Brian Holzinger, upends the whole course of events and puts doubt as to what foot really belongs to whom, and in what skate, and why, or if the crease in itself is simply a social construct. Therefore the conclusion is that the goal stands, because Dallas Stars players had already entered the ice and celebrated long before the referee realized doubts had been cast by anyone following these events.