HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Brett Hull cup clinching goal: Goal or no goal?

View Poll Results: Was the call correct?
Yes 105 36.33%
No 184 63.67%
Voters: 289. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2013, 04:40 PM
  #1
Stars and Bolts
Registered User
 
Stars and Bolts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 228
vCash: 500
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.

Stars and Bolts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 04:43 PM
  #2
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
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.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 04:54 PM
  #3
WildcatMapleLeafs28
Registered User
 
WildcatMapleLeafs28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,946
vCash: 500
Voted wrong. It was the right call. No goal.

WildcatMapleLeafs28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 04:56 PM
  #4
ZKass The Bass
Registered User
 
ZKass The Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Country: England
Posts: 579
vCash: 500
It was a good goal. Only Lindy Ruff can't see it

ZKass The Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 04:57 PM
  #5
29MacKinnon29
Calder, what's next?
 
29MacKinnon29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 50
No goal

29MacKinnon29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 04:59 PM
  #6
Machinehead
RIP Robin Williams
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 33,822
vCash: 500
It's a goal. That rule was stupid anyway.

__________________


DEUTSCHLANDWELTMEISTER2014
Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 05:06 PM
  #7
Oscar Acosta
Bat Country
 
Oscar Acosta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 3,982
vCash: 738
Stupid rule but at the time no goal.

Oscar Acosta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 05:15 PM
  #8
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,965
vCash: 500
This was settled a little while ago in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 05:24 PM
  #9
Green Blob*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
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.

Green Blob* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 05:43 PM
  #10
Sports
bedroom eyes
 
Sports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Futureworld
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 50
I love how its still so heavily disputed to this day.
Neck and neck in the poll.

Sports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 05:57 PM
  #11
5RingsAndABeer
John MacKinnon Fan
 
5RingsAndABeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,826
vCash: 1220
Dumb rule but it should have been no goal.

5RingsAndABeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 05:59 PM
  #12
crowi
Registered Plug
 
crowi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 500
Lehtinen got a cup for it, only reason why I'd even slightly care.

crowi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:03 PM
  #13
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars and Bolts View Post
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."

Cawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:05 PM
  #14
Terry Yake
Registered User
 
Terry Yake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 2,426
vCash: 500
no goal

Terry Yake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:07 PM
  #15
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,010
vCash: 500
Clearly it shouldn't have counted.

Sergei Shirokov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:09 PM
  #16
McTankel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
McTankel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,009
vCash: 500
Easily no goal.


McTankel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:09 PM
  #17
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,565
vCash: 156
He maintained possession. Goal.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:11 PM
  #18
Seth Rollins
Mr Money In The Bank
 
Seth Rollins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
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.

Seth Rollins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:27 PM
  #19
intylerwetrust
Space Oddity
 
intylerwetrust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,428
vCash: 500
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.

intylerwetrust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:28 PM
  #20
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Blob View Post
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.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:31 PM
  #21
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildcatMapleLeafs28 View Post
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.

beauchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:36 PM
  #22
OneMoreAstronaut
Reduce chainsaw size
 
OneMoreAstronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
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.

OneMoreAstronaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 07:00 PM
  #23
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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?

Cawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 07:05 PM
  #24
Ruston*
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Rollins View Post
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.

Ruston* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 07:28 PM
  #25
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 14,896
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.

glovesave_35 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 05:01 PM.

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.