The rule was stupid, however, it was a rule, and like you said had been used all year. It's possible both teams may not have been there if not for that rule. Thus, a rule is a rule, regardless of how "dumb" it may be viewed.
As far as your 2nd point, it is completely moot. There is no 100% guarantee Dallas scores the next goal and wins Game 7. Hasek was the great equalizer. Dallas did outplay Buffalo in many phases, yet Buffalo still won 2 games and took them to the 3rd overtime. If Dallas was so completely and totally better, why were they having so much trouble closing the deal? Because Buffalo was not an easy team to beat. All Buffalo needed was the next goal.
Game 7 is never a sure thing, no matter who you are playing. There are no medals given to how much "better" a team is, the final score is all that matters.
They would have needed at least 2 more goals. The thing is, I don't see anyone waltzing into Reunion Arena and taking game 7 from Dallas. The Stars were clearly the better team, and without Hasek and a select few playing well above their average (Pecca, Zhitnik, ect.), the Sabres don't make the finals, much less come close to beating Dallas.
They would have needed at least 2 more goals. The thing is, I don't see anyone waltzing into Reunion Arena and taking game 7 from Dallas. The Stars were clearly the better team, and without Hasek and a select few playing well above their average (Pecca, Zhitnik, ect.), the Sabres don't make the finals, much less come close to beating Dallas.
Yes, Dallas would've been heavily favored, since they were the better team. However, Buffalo proved in Game 1 that they could withstand the worst Dallas onslaught (on the road) and still come away with a victory. We don't know what would have happened.
I am very confident that Game 7 would not have been a blowout.
Last edited by Moonrock77: 12-15-2011 at 12:09 AM.
Yes, Dallas would've been heavily favored, since they were the better team. However, Buffalo proved in Game 1 that they could withstand the worst Dallas onslaught and still come away with a victory. We don't know what would have happened.
I am very confident that Game 7 would not have been a blowout.
By no means would it have been a blow-out. The Stars largest margin of victory in the playoffs was 3, they weren't exactly a team to run up the score, even given the chance. Heck, Dallas played Hitchcock hockey: get the lead and play nothing but D. Dallas lead the league in goal differential and won the President's trophy, and were far and away the better team on paper. I don't mean to say that Buffalo had no chance, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believes, confidently, that the Sabres would have won game 7 in Dallas. Sure there's always a chance to win the cup in game 7 on the road, but, historically speaking, the odds are strongly in Dallas's favor.
Well they swept the Oilers. And while I hated the Stars with a passion at that time I have to maintain one thing, they were a great team. They make the semis in 1998, win the Cup in 1999 and make the final in 2000. That was a good string of years for them so it is no surprise they won. Besides, in 2000 the crease rule had been abolished reverting back to the pre-1996-'97 days. You can't say they were aided by it by reaching the final.
I'm not saying Dallas wasn't a good team worthy of being in the finals or winning the cup, but the fact is they benefited from that rule more than any other team and when push came to shove the rule didn't get applied to them. Now, I'm not going to shout conspiracy, but I think its quite obvious what happened. NHL did not want to have to call off the cup winning goal after the celebration started. There should be no surprise that the rule was quickly changed in the off-season.
The no-skate-in-the-crease rule had to be the stupidest idea ever. Question though, when did they introduce it and why?
I remember it in the beginning of the 1996-'97 season. I don't remember it at all in the 1996 World Cup or the playoffs. In fact, there are a lot of goals I can think of off the top of my head where the goal might have been called off or even reviewed and it never happened. The 1997 playoffs was where it drew the most of the fans' anger. That's when it really started to get stupid. Instead of the NHL saying "well it was an experiment, it failed, let's go back to the original way it has been played for 100 years" they kept it going hoping the players would "catch on". Remember, the crease at that time was enormous. Remember the corners that stretched out past the net? I can't remember how many times a goal was called back because a player had his skate in that corner - on the other side of the action. But thanks to the NHL for keeping this in there for two more seasons we witnessed Boston basically losing a playoff series in 1998 and Dallas getting what many still call a "tainted" Cup.
To this day, even as a Leaf fan I scoff at the notion that Brian Burke is a genius because there wasn't a stronger voice that supported this rule (even after everything we saw) than Burke and I like to point that out for everyone that forgets and assumes he is a hockey God. Everyone in hockey was against it, Burke wasn't. So I often chuckle whenever he gets praised.
I had wondered if they introduced it earlier. I recall watching a highlight show on CBC from about 1990. Steve Larmer scores this goal against the Pens and the commentator reviewing the game says "[Larmer] looks like he's in the crease but it counts anyhow." I admit I don't remember the goal clearly, maybe he bumped the goalie when it bounced off him and in, hence the suspect ruling on the goal? Thing is it was in 1986 the league started using the semi-circle crease but why create the huge crease without some kind of rule change?
Wasn't rule already on the books, and the League just wanted to clarify and enforce it by adding video review?
I recall the Canucks having a huge goal called back in Game One of a series vs Chicago in 1995 because Trevor Linden was deemed to be in the crease. (Chicago scored a similar goal that was deemed legal, but I digress).
The League tends to like the rules to be a bit blurry, so they can call what they want when they want. An example would be when a puck is kicked in the net - I know what the rulebook says, but I have no idea how it will be enforced. The rules seem to change on a case by case basis.
As far as that Hull goal, whether it was legal or not, there was no way the League was going to disallow that goal and face the embarrassment of having restart the game after Dallas was celebrating a Cup win.
I started refereeing in 1953 and back then, the rule was already in the book, you couldn't have a foot in the crease when a goal was scored. However, if a player was in possession of the puck, he could go in the crease, or if the puck was already in the crease, a player could go in after it. As far as the Hull goal goes, it was the right call in allowing the goal.
That goal was completely within the rules of the time.
No t wasn't, but it should of been. It was ridiculous all the damn reviews and goals that were waived off because of a toe in the crease that had nothing to do with anything. It was getting to the point where you had to wait to celebrate after every goal that was in close to the net because of all the reviews. It was incredibly annoying and took away from the excitement of the game.
