HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Most controversial no-goal calls?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-13-2010, 06:06 PM
  #1
SephF
See you next time
 
SephF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,733
vCash: 500
Most controversial no-goal calls?

Was just watching this gem and thought it would be a good idea for a thread.



I love how Razor just rips into him. Awesome.

I'll just get this one out of the way before this gets started



Can't find a better clip.

SephF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:09 PM
  #2
pgreene
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,950
vCash: 500

pgreene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:11 PM
  #3
Chairman Maouth
Global Moderator
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,999
vCash: 2300
Doesn't exactly meet the thread criteria, but Sabres fans may disagree.

"No Goal"

The phrase "No Goal" is associated with a controversial goal scored by Brett Hull of the Dallas Stars in the 1999 Stanley Cup Final. When Hull scored his series-clinching goal in triple overtime of game six his foot was in the crease but the puck was not. During the middle of the season the NHL sent out a memo clarifying the "skate in the crease" rule that allowed goals in instances where the goalscorer established possession of the puck prior to entering the crease. On this play Hull kicked the puck with his left skate (while still outside of the crease) into a shooting position. Because of that action, he became the possessor of the puck prior to his skate entering the crease, which the NHL determined made the goal legitimate. Others have pointed out that similar plays were called differently during the regular season. Many Buffalo fans felt that this call was incorrectly made and the term "No Goal!" became their rallying cry. The rule that led to this controversy no longer exists in the NHL, however, as shortly after it was removed from the rule book.

Hull's goal ended the series and the Stars were awarded the Stanley Cup. In 1999, it was illegal to score a goal if an offensive player's skate entered the crease before the puck did. At the time, even Dallas Morning News hockey writer Keith Gave questioned the legality of the goal. NHL officials, however, maintained that Hull's two shots at the goal constituted a single possession of the puck since the puck deflected off Hasek, and their ruling stood, noting that they were going to change the rule the following year anyway. Al Strachan, hockey columnist for the Toronto Sun, and all-time NHL scoring leader Wayne Gretzky are on record as saying that the goal was legally scored and should have stood.[citation needed] NHL Director of Officiating Bryan Lewis said there was no crease violation because "Hull had possession of the puck when his skate entered the crease."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanley_Cup_Finals

Chairman Maouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:13 PM
  #4
pgreene
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
There really can be no other....

"No Goal"

The phrase "No Goal" is associated with a controversial goal scored by Brett Hull of the Dallas Stars in the 1999 Stanley Cup Final. When Hull scored his series-clinching goal in triple overtime of game six his foot was in the crease but the puck was not. During the middle of the season the NHL sent out a memo clarifying the "skate in the crease" rule that allowed goals in instances where the goalscorer established possession of the puck prior to entering the crease. On this play Hull kicked the puck with his left skate (while still outside of the crease) into a shooting position. Because of that action, he became the possessor of the puck prior to his skate entering the crease, which the NHL determined made the goal legitimate. Others have pointed out that similar plays were called differently during the regular season. Many Buffalo fans felt that this call was incorrectly made and the term "No Goal!" became their rallying cry. The rule that led to this controversy no longer exists in the NHL, however, as shortly after it was removed from the rule book.

Hull's goal ended the series and the Stars were awarded the Stanley Cup. In 1999, it was illegal to score a goal if an offensive player's skate entered the crease before the puck did. At the time, even Dallas Morning News hockey writer Keith Gave questioned the legality of the goal. NHL officials, however, maintained that Hull's two shots at the goal constituted a single possession of the puck since the puck deflected off Hasek, and their ruling stood, noting that they were going to change the rule the following year anyway. Al Strachan, hockey columnist for the Toronto Sun, and all-time NHL scoring leader Wayne Gretzky are on record as saying that the goal was legally scored and should have stood.[citation needed] NHL Director of Officiating Bryan Lewis said there was no crease violation because "Hull had possession of the puck when his skate entered the crease."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Stanley_Cup_Finals
but... wasn't hull's called a goal?

pgreene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:14 PM
  #5
Chairman Maouth
Global Moderator
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,999
vCash: 2300
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgreene View Post
but... wasn't hull's called a goal?
Yeah. Check the edit I'd already made.

Chairman Maouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:14 PM
  #6
BrindamoursNose
Registered User
 
BrindamoursNose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500

BrindamoursNose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:16 PM
  #7
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgreene View Post
are you serious? half your goals in that series came from running halak over and the closeup on the play clearly showed halak was interfered with.

overlords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:17 PM
  #8
pgreene
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
Yeah. Check the edit I'd already made.
oops. muh bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindamoursNose View Post
strong to very strong nomination.

pgreene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:24 PM
  #9
SephF
See you next time
 
SephF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,733
vCash: 500
No video review is just brutal in such a massive world wide event.

SephF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:45 PM
  #10
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bam83 View Post
Was just watching this gem and thought it would be a good idea for a thread.



I love how Razor just rips into him. Awesome.

I'll just get this one out of the way before this gets started



Can't find a better clip.
This worst I've seen.


CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:52 PM
  #11
pgreene
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
This worst I've seen.

uhm, yeah that's frikking embarrassing. did it ever get explained?

pgreene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:56 PM
  #12
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
here are some of the no-goal calls happened last year.








that was a goal but it was controversial


oh and here's a top 10 controversial goal/no-goal





EDIT: is it controversial too?



Last edited by Fel 96: 08-13-2010 at 07:07 PM.
Fel 96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:59 PM
  #13
Kusic
Be The Thunder
 
Kusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Karlovy Vary
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 1,554
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kusic

Kusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:59 PM
  #14
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgreene View Post
uhm, yeah that's frikking embarrassing. did it ever get explained?
From what I read after this, the referee pulled out the "intended to blow the whistle" card. Intended to blow the whistle on a shot? And also I think his ego wouldn't let him make the right call.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 06:59 PM
  #15
timmeh
Registered User
 
timmeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgreene View Post
uhm, yeah that's frikking embarrassing. did it ever get explained?
intent to blow the whistle to kill the play

timmeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:02 PM
  #16
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmeh View Post
intent to blow the whistle to kill the play
Don't forget he intended to blow the whistle on a backhanded shot.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:06 PM
  #17
DingoAteMyBaby
Registered User
 
DingoAteMyBaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindamoursNose View Post
Even if that counted it wouldn't have changed anything.

Germany was still going to win

DingoAteMyBaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:08 PM
  #18
timmeh
Registered User
 
timmeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gibson Cup View Post
Don't forget he intended to blow the whistle on a backhanded shot.
I'm not debating wether it was the right call. The ref said during the game that the reason for disallowing the goal was because of intent to blow the whistle

timmeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:09 PM
  #19
usernam*
#TeamSuccess
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Not really one in mind. More of a set.

It strikes me as odd how many goals Matt Duchene had called back last year. He had 2 or 3 against Minnesota alone...

usernam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:24 PM
  #20
ihaveyuidonttouchme
Registered User
 
ihaveyuidonttouchme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 112

ihaveyuidonttouchme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:27 PM
  #21
usernam*
#TeamSuccess
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybergeron89 View Post
Will I get flamed for saying I would've allowed that?

usernam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:33 PM
  #22
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by AS74 View Post
Will I get flamed for saying I would've allowed that?
no because Canucks fans will all agree with you..


seriously though, I don't remember the discussion about and what most people thought about that.


Last edited by Fel 96: 08-13-2010 at 07:52 PM.
Fel 96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:34 PM
  #23
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AS74 View Post
Will I get flamed for saying I would've allowed that?
Many goals like that have been allowed until the NHL decided to change the rule.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:37 PM
  #24
BrindamoursNose
Registered User
 
BrindamoursNose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by warmplate View Post
Even if that counted it wouldn't have changed anything.

Germany was still going to win
Maybe. It would've made the game 2-2. We'll see!

BrindamoursNose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2010, 07:39 PM
  #25
JBIZ14
Registered User
 
JBIZ14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AS74 View Post
Will I get flamed for saying I would've allowed that?
No because it should have counted...even after reviewing the DVD Murphy mentions in that clip the similar example used was allowed.

JBIZ14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.