http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_KWHcJg58o

old, but part of me almost feels like hulls "no-goal" in 99 was karma for a currect buffalo sabres actions 12 years earlier....

but maybe not. interesting video though. thanks to kevin for the video.

_________________

No talk of a secret mid-season rules change after that one?

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Eh. Hull's goal was legal. Wasn't how they'd been calling it, maybe, but it was off a rebound. It was legal.

To be honest it doesn't bother me at all...

That goal wasn't legal, though.

_________________
Miles to go before I sleep

‎"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation."
-Khalil Gibran

Both Hull and that clip had a guy in the crease.

Grier never touched the puck when in the crease anyways. It looked like someone else took the shot and got the score.

_________________

Jael, you shut your filthy mouth.

_________________
mechaphil

didnt have to touch the puck for the crease rule to be in effect.

hulls goal, ive always argued, is goaltender interference. take a closer look, haseks stick is blocked by hulls skate, thus, he cant poke it away. by old rules, intereference.

no, atl, it was not legal. the changed rule is, he kicked the puck to himself, a rule not in the rule book, just as well, hull was still there before the puck. the rebound left the crease, while he was still in it. a rebound is not puck control.

_________________

I'm sorry for laughing Jael, but this is just priceless.

_________________
Wheelhouse

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

sorry, I have no sympathy for a hockey team below the mason dixon line.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

The rebound alone wasn't puck control, but according to the rules at the time (I don't know if this particular rule has changed because the things I have looked up concerning that goal have never mentioned it), he had possession because he took the initial shot and then got his own rebound. Not only that, but he dragged the puck over to the side he shot from with his stick and proceeded to kick it back to himself after that to put into position to shoot. Even if that hadn't been his rebound, he still would have had possession because of that. If the Stars had been called for a penalty, the whistle would have been blown to begin it before he shot the puck a second time.

I'm probably the only Sabres fan alive that thinks that that goal was within the rules. The fact that they hadn't been calling goals like that correctly all year doesn't make that one illegal.

Glad they got rid of that rule, though.

_________________
Miles to go before I sleep

‎"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation."
-Khalil Gibran

All I know this intent to blow rule is crap, if you intend to blow a dick just do it.

Oh wait, Intend to Blow a whistle, sorry, but that rule needs to be fucking NUKED FROM ORBIT.

if a ref wants to be a fucking douche he'll say no goal because I intended to blow that call, I mean whistle but I still blew the call because I'm a douche.

Get rid of the rule and play to the whistle. Because couldn't a Ref just say before a goal is scored like ten seconds he intended to blow the whistle then and take away a goal?

The Phoenix/Sharks game right now the announcers were talking about that rule and how EVERY SPORT in the WORLD plays to the whislte, not having to read the mind of the guys blowing the game, Whistle.

_________________

no. they hadnt called goals like that goals all year. they were waved off. it was black and white. if you were in the crease, and the puck wasnt, no goal. no ifs ands or buts about it. that possession rule is a complete fabrication that never was in the books, or ever called like that till this instance. it wasnt a goal by the rule book.

not only that, but by hulls illegally placed skate, it prevented hasek from poking the puck away, AKA, goaltender interference at the time.

im sorry, but you are wrong.

_________________

I think the goaltender interference is the best argument for the illegality of that goal.

This was the rule in the rule book at the time, according to every source I've looked at:


The puck entered the crease prior to Hull due to his first shot. Therefore, it was a good goal.

Stupid rule, but... The goaltender interference holds more water IMO.

_________________
Miles to go before I sleep

‎"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation."
-Khalil Gibran

but then the puck left the crease. and was no in possession. why do you think this is considered the worst blown call in the history of the game? why, when asked about it, many star players only shrugged, and said "no comment"

in the 10 years after, all we hear about is the rule that was created and never notified. nor in the rule book was their anything about the puck leaving said crease. all prior plays similar to this goal were all waived off. its not a goal.

_________________

He had possession of the puck the entire time, though, when it was both outside of the crease and in. Because he initially had possession of it after it had entered the crease, and because he then entered the crease, couple the rules about possession at the time with the aforequoted (don't care that that's not a word lol) rule, and it wasn't a bad goal.

Didn't that rule only last that one season? Or was it in place before that? I think I remember reading that it was only a rule for that year because it was never consistently called correctly, but I don't know if that's true or if it was there for a season or two before that as well.

We can agree to disagree. It's not a big deal or something based that much on facts; though I'm sure we both see it that way, there really is a lot of opinion to it. That rule was never simple to interpret in the first place, hence all the inconsistency in calling it. I do remember looking up other goals similar to Hull's once, and it was basically 50/50 whether they were allowed or not. Any rule that causes that kind of indecision is garbage.

_________________
Miles to go before I sleep

‎"Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation."
-Khalil Gibran

The rule was being changed the next season, but that rule had been in effect for some time before it, I believe, I do know it was being eliminated the next season though.

_________________