HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Polls - (hockey-related only) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   Brett Hull cup clinching goal: Goal or no goal? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1494061)

Stars and Bolts 09-05-2013 04:40 PM

Brett Hull cup clinching goal: Goal or no goal?
 
Do you think the cup clinching goal Brett Hull scored for the Stars in 1999 was the correct call? I think it was. Yes, I'm biased being a Stars fan, but the call is often viewed from the wrong perspective. The crease rule allowed an opposing to player to enter as long as they had control of the puck. In this case, Hull did enter the crease with control of the puck, and shooting it, followed by shooting in the rebound immediately afterwards, was deemed control.

Wizeman* 09-05-2013 04:43 PM

According to the league rules, the puck came outside the crease, hull was still in the crease which is defined as his shoelace or better. He then got the puck and scooped it into the goal.

It was no goal.

However ,those supporting the goal will no doubt bring in a whole raft of spin and justifications for it.

WildcatMapleLeafs28 09-05-2013 04:54 PM

Voted wrong. It was the right call. No goal.

ZKass The Bass 09-05-2013 04:56 PM

It was a good goal. Only Lindy Ruff can't see it

29MacKinnon29 09-05-2013 04:57 PM

No goal

Machinehead 09-05-2013 04:59 PM

It's a goal. That rule was stupid anyway.

Oscar Acosta 09-05-2013 05:06 PM

Stupid rule but at the time no goal.

hairylikebear 09-05-2013 05:15 PM

This was settled a little while ago in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 36558475)
No. This is the applicable passage:

-"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.)



At 0:44, Hull is standing completely outside the crease. He kicks the puck toward his stick and THEN his foot slides over into the crease. In other words, he "maintains control of the puck" FIRST and skates into the crease before shooting it into the net.

Result: Goal is allowed. The offside-rule rationale applies.

If what you want is closure, this is your chance to have it. The Sabres got the memo, and the call was correct. The way it was handled was awful, but you guys were not screwed on that call.

There's no controversy, just Sabres fans in denial. It was the right call.

Green Blob* 09-05-2013 05:24 PM

It was clearly NOT a good goal based on the rules at the time. When the goalie made the save and the rebound came out that was him losing control of the puck. Him getting it again off his skate is a new time frame but by then hes already in the crease before he regains possession.

Not sure how people dont understand that and vote it was the correct call.

It was just a terrible rule to make though.

Sports 09-05-2013 05:43 PM

I love how its still so heavily disputed to this day.
Neck and neck in the poll.

5RingsAndABeer 09-05-2013 05:57 PM

Dumb rule but it should have been no goal.

crowi 09-05-2013 05:59 PM

Lehtinen got a cup for it, only reason why I'd even slightly care.

Cawz 09-05-2013 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts (Post 70824301)
Do you think the cup clinching goal Brett Hull scored for the Stars in 1999 was the correct call? I think it was. Yes, I'm biased being a Stars fan, but the call is often viewed from the wrong perspective. The crease rule allowed an opposing to player to enter as long as they had control of the puck. In this case, Hull did enter the crease with control of the puck, and shooting it, followed by shooting in the rebound immediately afterwards, was deemed control.

I'm just going by memory, but it this not what happened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by League Memorandum
"Attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed. The player did not maintain control of the puck."


Terry Yake 09-05-2013 06:05 PM

no goal

Sergei Shirokov 09-05-2013 06:07 PM

Clearly it shouldn't have counted.

McTankel 09-05-2013 06:09 PM

Easily no goal.

http://imageshack.com/scaled/large/10/pk69.jpg

Beef Invictus 09-05-2013 06:09 PM

He maintained possession. Goal.

Seth Rollins 09-05-2013 06:11 PM

People who say no goal are either Sabres fans or don't understand the rule. Hull had possession of the puck before he entered the crease, and was never out of possession between that point and scoring the goal. It was a good goal.

intylerwetrust 09-05-2013 06:27 PM

according to the rules the call was correct.

although, if the goal was waived off and Buffalo won the Cup, there wouldve been more controversy because the rule was idiotic int he first place.

tarheelhockey 09-05-2013 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Blob (Post 70825689)
It was clearly NOT a good goal based on the rules at the time. When the goalie made the save and the rebound came out that was him losing control of the puck. Him getting it again off his skate is a new time frame but by then hes already in the crease before he regains possession.

No, he had possession through the entire sequence.

The proof of this concept is simple: at any point during the sequence, Hull would have been eligible for a body check. If he didn't have possession of the puck (in the legal sense), hitting him would have been interference.

Hull had possession while crossing in and out of the crease, so the rule did not apply. The Sabres were informed of this exception by a memo that they verified they received.

It was a legally valid goal.

beauchamp 09-05-2013 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildcatMapleLeafs28 (Post 70824709)
Voted wrong. It was the right call. No goal.

"Right call" followed by "no goal"?

No wonder you voted wrong...

Unless my memory is far gone. :cry:

OneMoreAstronaut 09-05-2013 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beef Invictus (Post 70827015)
He maintained possession. Goal.

This was a smokescreen invented after the call could not possibly have been taken back. Goals were called off throughout the year under equal circumstances.

Cawz 09-05-2013 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 70827607)
No, he had possession through the entire sequence.

The proof of this concept is simple: at any point during the sequence, Hull would have been eligible for a body check. If he didn't have possession of the puck (in the legal sense), hitting him would have been interference.

Hull had possession while crossing in and out of the crease, so the rule did not apply. The Sabres were informed of this exception by a memo that they verified they received.

It was a legally valid goal.

Not accoring to the league memo he didnt have possession. According to the memo, after he recovers the puck after the save - "The player did not maintain control of the puck".

I noticed you conveniently (?) posted only half of the memo in a quoted post earlier, but here is the whole memo from the link in your post:

-"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.)

-"Attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed. The player did not maintain control of the puck."

Now which instance better describes what happened in this play? A or B?

Ruston* 09-05-2013 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Rollins (Post 70827073)
People who say no goal are either Sabres fans or don't understand the rule. Hull had possession of the puck before he entered the crease, and was never out of possession between that point and scoring the goal. It was a good goal.

But here's the problem I and other members of the "no goal" faction have with the ruling:

MANY goals that season were waived off because as little as the tip of an opposing player's skates' lace was in the crease, regardless of whether or not it impeded the goalie in ANY relevant way (almost every time it did not), and in every single one of these cases, who had possession of the puck was NEVER factored into those rulings.

And yet, all of a sudden, on a goal that brings a Cup to the U.S.'s Southern Belt for the first time, the NHL decides to give a **** about "possession."

And the fact that the decision had to be clarified (or, more aporopriately, "justified") on national TV on the league's biggest stage should remind people how amateur the NHL can be.

glovesave_35 09-05-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 70827607)
No, he had possession through the entire sequence.

The proof of this concept is simple: at any point during the sequence, Hull would have been eligible for a body check. If he didn't have possession of the puck (in the legal sense), hitting him would have been interference.

Hull had possession while crossing in and out of the crease, so the rule did not apply. The Sabres were informed of this exception by a memo that they verified they received.

It was a legally valid goal.

Apparently the rest of the hockey world did not get that memo. Much ado about nothing but Stars fans do take a certain amount of good humored pleasure at this discussion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.