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, 07:34 PM
  #26
Ampersand
Dallas Stars Fan
 
Ampersand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,557
vCash: 500
Good goal.

Ampersand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 07:48 PM
  #27
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,287
vCash: 500
Stupid rule, but still not a legal goal.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 08:33 PM
  #28
loadie
Official Beer Taster
 
loadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,085
vCash: 500
No Goal.

loadie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 09:01 PM
  #29
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,569
vCash: 500
Going by the rules it was no goal and a travesty that they allowed the cup to be won on a goal like that.

Eskimo44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 11:59 PM
  #30
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
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:
I noticed you conveniently (?) didn't acknowledge the rest of that post where I explained the correct application of the rule in step-by-step detail.

To make it as simple as possible, go to 0:43 of the video quoted in that post. Hull and the puck are both outside the crease. Hull kicks the puck to his stick -- at that point he re-establishes possession of the puck. From that point forward, he is allowed to do a pirouette inside the crease if he wishes, even if he is dangling the puck outside the crease. The offside rule rationale applies from the moment Hull kicks the puck to his stick.

This is per a specific explanation that the league clarified mid-season in a memo that the Sabres quietly confirmed they did receive, after denying it initially.

The rule, as plainly interpreted in that memo, states that a goal such as this one is good.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 01:38 AM
  #31
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,114
vCash: 500
I don't see how anyone could vote "no goal" after reading the memo the NHL sent out in March.

It is correct that goals like that were called off before under the stupid "no goal" rule, but were any after the March memo?

Basically, the foot in the crease rule was a horrible rule that would call off goals for essentially an arbitrary reason. The NHL looks to have relaxed the horrible rule in March, before the 1999 playoffs started.

For what it's worth, I thought it was technically no goal for, well, like a decade, until I saw evidence of the memo sent out that March. Guess Buffalo screamed so loud for so long, that everyone believed them.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-06-2013 at 02:04 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:08 AM
  #32
AJMHABS
25days!! New life
 
AJMHABS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar Acosta View Post
Stupid rule but at the time no goal.
Pretty much.

AJMHABS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:25 AM
  #33
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
You guys arent looking at the replay . Hull does not have 'control' of the puck . It comes out, gets inadvertantly knocked to his skate that was already in the crease, which is illegal.

Here was the memo sent to everyone

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."

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:29 AM
  #34
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 18,537
vCash: 500
This should end well, by the rules it was a no goal. One of the more egregious errors I have seen while watching sports especially given what was at stake.

For those saying it was reversed by the memo, I watched Homer have at least two similar establishing possession goals called off that year after march because of his foot being in the crease. They were still calling it like that, why they went ahead and did away with that altogether. It is a nice cover by the league, but I don't buy it fitting in with how they called it that season, I remember it quite differently although we are getting to the point where it is getting a bit fuzzy everywhere except for of course Buffalo.


Last edited by The Zetterberg Era: 09-06-2013 at 02:35 AM.
The Zetterberg Era is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:30 AM
  #35
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
He maintained possession. Goal.
This was the tidy argument to avoid controversy. But it fails the test.

Hull swipes at the puck with his stake and kicks it to an area of the ice where nobody is. He is just kicking at it to get it free. That is not possession of the puck. Anyone could have taken possession of it.

He bats his stick to the area where the puck now is which is outside the crease and bangs it into the goal.

It was no goal.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:48 AM
  #36
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogaine View Post
This was the tidy argument to avoid controversy. But it fails the test.

Hull swipes at the puck with his stake and kicks it to an area of the ice where nobody is. He is just kicking at it to get it free. That is not possession of the puck. Anyone could have taken possession of it.

He bats his stick to the area where the puck now is which is outside the crease and bangs it into the goal.

It was no goal.
This is pretty hard to believe. You think one of the best goal scorers in NHL history just happened to do some slapdash actions and bury the puck out of luck? It looks like he very clearly intends to do what he does. It's a move players use all the time.

Anyone could have taken possession of the puck, sure. But that's true at all points of the game; at any point where you have the puck, someone else can take it. The thing is, nobody else did take it. It was all Hull's.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Last edited by Beef Invictus: 09-06-2013 at 02:53 AM.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 07:29 AM
  #37
PensBandwagonerNo272
the march
 
PensBandwagonerNo272's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildcatMapleLeafs28 View Post
Voted wrong. It was the right call. No goal.
same

PensBandwagonerNo272 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 07:49 AM
  #38
Trafalgar Law
Waive Dallas Eakins
 
Trafalgar Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 500
Stupid rule, but the foot was clearly in the crease.

Trafalgar Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 08:35 AM
  #39
The Red Line
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar Acosta View Post
Stupid rule but at the time no goal.
This.

Very dumb rule, but if the rule is in place, you enforce it, and they didn't... so they got it wrong.

The Red Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 08:44 AM
  #40
Cursed Lemon
Registered Bruiser
 
Cursed Lemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,733
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cursed Lemon Send a message via MSN to Cursed Lemon Send a message via Yahoo to Cursed Lemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogaine View Post
This was the tidy argument to avoid controversy. But it fails the test.

Hull swipes at the puck with his stake and kicks it to an area of the ice where nobody is. He is just kicking at it to get it free. That is not possession of the puck. Anyone could have taken possession of it.

He bats his stick to the area where the puck now is which is outside the crease and bangs it into the goal.

It was no goal.
It doesn't matter what it LOOKS like.

He kicked the puck from his skate directly to his stick.

You CANNOT say that's not keeping possession.

Cursed Lemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 08:49 AM
  #41
Buckets and Gloves
10 AVE FREEZE OUT
 
Buckets and Gloves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,277
vCash: 500
No goal.

Buckets and Gloves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 08:51 AM
  #42
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogaine View Post
You guys arent looking at the replay . Hull does not have 'control' of the puck . It comes out, gets inadvertantly knocked to his skate that was already in the crease, which is illegal.

Here was the memo sent to everyone

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."
1) The kick wasn't "inadvertent", it was a clear act of kicking the puck directly to his stick for a shot. We are talking about Brett Hull here, not some mite player. He did it on purpose.

2) That's not the relevant part of the memo.


I apologize for the crummy resolution on the images below, but hopefully this will help explain the ruling.


This is an image of Hull with his skates completely outside the crease. As you can see in the red circle, the puck is loose in front of him. There's a technical argument that he is already in possession of the puck at this point, but we don't need to go there. Let's just say it's anybody's puck.





This is the critical moment that many people seem to forget: Hull takes possession of the puck OUTSIDE the crease. In this frame, he is halfway through his kick that moves the puck up to his stick blade. Again, as you can clearly see, the puck and both skates are still completely outside the crease. And Hull now has possession of the puck...






This is the final, infamous still shot that people remember most clearly. In isolation it appears that Hull is picking up a loose puck while in the crease -- but that's NOT what happens here. The puck is in transit to his stick blade, as a result of the kick where he took possession. During that instant, Hull swiveled his skates to get into shooting position.





Now, look at the relevant portion of the memo that the Sabres acknowledged they received in March:

Quote:
-"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.)
For those not completely familiar with the offside rule:

Quote:
a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

To summarize:

1) Hull had possession of the puck with both skates outside the crease.
2) While in possession of the puck, he turned so that one skate entered the crease.
3) The NHL specifically ruled in MARCH of that year that situations exactly like this one should be ruled good goals.

Therefore, the goal is legal.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:06 AM
  #43
NyQuil
Setec Astronomy
 
NyQuil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NyLand
Country: Canada
Posts: 43,611
vCash: 500
Stupid rule, but shouldn't have counted.

I get that the rule had been tweaked, but goals were getting disallowed left and right on much less.

NyQuil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:16 AM
  #44
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
meticulous explanation of why the goal was legal. with pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyQuil View Post
Stupid rule, but shouldn't have counted.

I get that the rule had been tweaked, but goals were getting disallowed left and right on much less.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:25 AM
  #45
OneMoreAstronaut
Reduce chainsaw size
 
OneMoreAstronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 1360
The entire "keeping possession" argument is completely moot anyway, because the league did not once call the rule that way throughout the year. It was invented after the fact to avoid controversy. That Buffalo "confirmed they got a memo" is likely just the team playing nice with the league to let them save face.

OneMoreAstronaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:46 AM
  #46
Section337
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
I don't agree with the possession rationale, specially in context of an offside. Even if directed, if the puck hit the skate on one side of the blue line and then the stick blade on the other side, it would be called offside. The only way is if you give the benefit of the doubt based on the skill of the player, which is a crap way of making calls.

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:56 AM
  #47
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneMoreAstronaut View Post
The entire "keeping possession" argument is completely moot anyway, because the league did not once call the rule that way throughout the year. It was invented after the fact to avoid controversy.
What part of "circulated on March 25th" is not sinking in?

Quote:
That Buffalo "confirmed they got a memo" is likely just the team playing nice with the league to let them save face.
Except that they repeatedly denied knowledge of the rule and accused Bettman of covering up a mistake... until later in the summer when they very quietly acknowledged that they had in fact received it on March 25th and refused to comment further.

Doesn't sound like the league was the one trying to save face.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:03 AM
  #48
NyQuil
Setec Astronomy
 
NyQuil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NyLand
Country: Canada
Posts: 43,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
meticulous explanation of why the goal was legal. with pictures.
This explanation only came out after this goal occurred.

There were goals being disallowed in the playoffs all over the place which is why there was such a surprise about this one. (I can remember Moreau having a "toe in the crease")

Not to mention, personally, I find it hard to be convinced conclusively of possession using static pictures. If the puck is touching the stick, it doesn't mean possession.

The NHL argued that the shot, rebound, kick, and rebound again was one possession as he's moving through the crease.

I think they're covering their *****.

NyQuil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:06 AM
  #49
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,702
vCash: 500
I would love to see if any of the disallowed goals were just like this one.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:19 AM
  #50
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyQuil View Post
This explanation only came out after this goal occurred.
No, it came out on March 25th when the rule was changed. Confirmed by the Sabres organization.

Quote:
There were goals being disallowed in the playoffs all over the place which is why there was such a surprise about this one. (I can remember Moreau having a "toe in the crease")
The rule prohibiting players standing in the crease was still in effect. The purpose of the memo was to clarify that the rule didn't apply to players who skated into the crease with possession of the puck, which is what Hull did.

I don't remember any goals similar to Hull's being waved off, and would be very interested to see an example. Of course it would be a case of a bad call on the first goal, not the Hull goal, but it would at least add some substance to that argument.

Quote:
Not to mention, personally, I find it hard to be convinced conclusively of possession using static pictures. If the puck is touching the stick, it doesn't mean possession.
So look at the overhead video instead and see the same thing. The static pictures are simply a point of reference to highlight the fact that Hull was quite clearly outside the crease when he found the puck.

Quote:
The NHL argued that the shot, rebound, kick, and rebound again was one possession as he's moving through the crease.
And I think they were being overly technical in order to avoid people finding loopholes in the concept of "control". That has been happening as a fallback argument ever since the Sabres acknowledged that they had received the memo.

To me, setting aside the loophole arguments and looking at the intent and substance of the rules, it's very clear that the league gave players the green light to enter the crease before the puck as long as they were the actual puck carrier. That was the entire purpose of the memo -- it's just that nobody really cared about such an arcane subject until it actually happened at a critical moment.

tarheelhockey 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 08:21 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.