HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Biggest Stanley cup controversy in modern hockey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-30-2006, 03:38 PM
  #51
NJDevs430
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskoil99
Everyone and their dog knows that goal shouldnt have counted.
Actually, I adopted my dog from a shelter in Dallas and we debate this all the time.
He says goal, I say no...bad dog!!
<(-:{

NJDevs430 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 03:55 PM
  #52
Wags
Registered User
 
Wags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Frugal Gourmet
That's not relevant information, though. He possessed the puck prior to entering.
The puck did not have to be in the crease.
Yes it did

Wags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 04:03 PM
  #53
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,569
vCash: 500
Basically, the boredom generated from the Dallas-Buffalo final was enough for the refs to ignore the rulebook. Worked for me. I fell asleep three times during that game.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 04:09 PM
  #54
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,569
vCash: 500
How about the "fog game" in 1975 between Philly and Buffalo?

And then there was the Maurice Richard suspension in 1956, but that encompassed all the playoffs and the last several games of the regular season. Still, Montreal made it to the finals and lost in game 7 without the Rocket.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 05:27 PM
  #55
jiggs 10
Registered User
 
jiggs 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockeytown, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVPOLARBEARS19
Basically he was in the crease and the puck wasn't a blatant infraction. Nonetheless, this happened in triple OT in game 6 and the refs didn't even review it. If they had, it would have definately been reversed. The Sabres got screwed, even though I never really liked that rule in the first place...and now it's out of the rule books.

Here's a pic of it.

http://users.tellurian.com/slapshot/images/Dal_buf1.jpg
The Hull goal WAS good. The rule was that once the puck was in the crease, the player could go after it. The puck was in the crease, on Hull's stick, then he lost it. The fact that it came back out of the crease for a milli-second before he shot it in is irrelevant. He was in control of it, he was not interferring with Hasek at all. Luckily, the rule was clarified the next year, but it was STILL a goal.

Gelinas' goal was clearly NOT a goal. It was even used as an example in a Sports Illustrated article on the video replay room of the NHL, and how they got it right.

jiggs 10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 05:34 PM
  #56
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,826
vCash: 1650
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs430
Actually, I adopted my dog from a shelter in Dallas and we debate this all the time.
He says goal, I say no...bad dog!!
<(-:{

Does your dog know Anastasia-Priscilla, the fantastic giant poodle of Stars forward Mike Modano?

Bring Back Bucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 06:26 PM
  #57
Lionel Hutz
Registered User
 
Lionel Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Locking the Lounge??
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,983
vCash: 500
biggest controversy was creating a new rule and allowing the Hull rule to stand. Before that, I don`t recall hearing that a player could be in the crease, so long as he had control of the puck when he entered the crease.

Lionel Hutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 06:27 PM
  #58
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiggs 10
The Hull goal WAS good. The rule was that once the puck was in the crease, the player could go after it. The puck was in the crease, on Hull's stick, then he lost it. The fact that it came back out of the crease for a milli-second before he shot it in is irrelevant. He was in control of it, he was not interferring with Hasek at all. Luckily, the rule was clarified the next year, but it was STILL a goal.
And that's the problem here. People assume control to be the puck on the stick when the real question is posession. Hull was still in posession when he shot it in. Good goal using the most technical aspects of the rules at the time.

But idiot Sabres fans who also don't know the rules of how a lateral works just whine about a skate in the crease.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 06:28 PM
  #59
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 25,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Hutz
biggest controversy was creating a new rule and allowing the Hull rule to stand. Before that, I don`t recall hearing that a player could be in the crease, so long as he had control of the puck when he entered the crease.
Funny enough, the Stars had a goal scored against them the same way earlier in the playoffs.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 06:33 PM
  #60
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,754
vCash: 500
I seem to dimly remember a playoff series (may or may not have been the Finals) where a John Leclair slapper went in the net through a hole in the mesh and counted. Can anyone either:

a) remember the same thing?

or

b) confirm my growing senility?

Thanks

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 07:01 PM
  #61
RangersMoogle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Country: American Samoa
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangersMoogle Send a message via MSN to RangersMoogle
You know, it'd be nice if the NHL rules weren't written for God damn lawyers.

RangersMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 07:43 PM
  #62
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
I seem to dimly remember a playoff series (may or may not have been the Finals) where a John Leclair slapper went in the net through a hole in the mesh and counted. Can anyone either:

a) remember the same thing?

or

b) confirm my growing senility?

Thanks
Yes it happened. It was against the Sabres. I believe it was game 2 of the 2000 playoffs, round one.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2006, 08:40 PM
  #63
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER
I believe in either 99 or 2002 (I just remember it involved Hasek) a puck was shot that went in between a seam between the post and the netting and was counted as a goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
I seem to dimly remember a playoff series (may or may not have been the Finals) where a John Leclair slapper went in the net through a hole in the mesh and counted. Can anyone either:

a) remember the same thing?

or

b) confirm my growing senility?

Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Yes it happened. It was against the Sabres. I believe it was game 2 of the 2000 playoffs, round one.
I'm assuming this is the same goal since vs the Sabres it must have been Hasek. Weirdest goal ever.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 03:58 AM
  #64
David Puddy
Registered User
 
David Puddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
A minor controversy happened during the 1984 Stanley Cup Finals. The venue format was changed from the previous season, but it was not announced until the finals. In 1983 SCF, the team with the better regular-season record would play H-H-A-A-H-A-H (like it currently is.) That format had actually been used in the NHL for the SCF dating back to 1951. For 1984 the NHL changed it to H-H-A-A-A-H-H. This way would be retained for the following season's Finals before returning the current form.

The problem with that format was that it gave the team with the lesser regular season record an advantage if they could split the first two on the road.

I heard Clark Gillies complain about this to Fran Healy on a Fox Sports Net New York show.

David Puddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 05:06 AM
  #65
HansH
Unwelcome Spectre
 
HansH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,404
vCash: 500
Game 3 (not 2), 1993 Stanley Cup Finals. Vincent Damphousse (?) clearly covers the puck in the Montreal crease in OT... and the Kings are NOT awarded the penalty shot that would have undone the damage of McSorely's illegal stick.

HansH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 07:17 AM
  #66
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Yes it happened. It was against the Sabres. I believe it was game 2 of the 2000 playoffs, round one.
John LeClair, he cant hit a wide open net yet can put the puck through a tiny slice in the side of the net.

Haseks double take after it "went in" was priceless.

Steve L* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 08:25 AM
  #67
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiggs 10
The Hull goal WAS good. The rule was that once the puck was in the crease, the player could go after it. The puck was in the crease, on Hull's stick, then he lost it. The fact that it came back out of the crease for a milli-second before he shot it in is irrelevant. He was in control of it, he was not interferring with Hasek at all. Luckily, the rule was clarified the next year, but it was STILL a goal.

Gelinas' goal was clearly NOT a goal. It was even used as an example in a Sports Illustrated article on the video replay room of the NHL, and how they got it right.
That fact actually is relavent. He lost possession of the puck whether it was for a millisecond or not is irrelavent. He lost possession so he had to leave the crease. The problem with the whole thing for me was the whole bs explaination and lack of review of the play. The league claimed there was a "memo" that came out clarifying the crease rule. They still haven't given a good explaination why they didn't review the goal. Hull himself has even admitted in recent years that the goal shouldn't have counted. Whatever, No Goal , Wide right if you will excuse me I'm going back to beating my head against a wall.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 10:41 AM
  #68
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansH
Game 3 (not 2), 1993 Stanley Cup Finals. Vincent Damphousse (?) clearly covers the puck in the Montreal crease in OT... and the Kings are NOT awarded the penalty shot that would have undone the damage of McSorely's illegal stick.
The way Roy was playing that spring I don't know that there was anybody on the Kings who would have beat him on the penalty shot anyway.

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 11:45 AM
  #69
albertGQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74
The way Roy was playing that spring I don't know that there was anybody on the Kings who would have beat him on the penalty shot anyway.
You're right. With your logic, they shouldn't have played games 3, 4, or 5 either since Roy was playing unbelievealbe and there was no way the Kings would be able to beat St.Patrick

Give your head a shake buddy

albertGQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 11:54 AM
  #70
jerseydevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Giguere winning the Conn Smythe

jerseydevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2006, 09:37 PM
  #71
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Yes it happened. It was against the Sabres. I believe it was game 2 of the 2000 playoffs, round one.
That's very reassuring. Thanks.

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2006, 12:15 AM
  #72
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Puddy
A minor controversy happened during the 1984 Stanley Cup Finals. The venue format was changed from the previous season, but it was not announced until the finals. In 1983 SCF, the team with the better regular-season record would play H-H-A-A-H-A-H (like it currently is.) That format had actually been used in the NHL for the SCF dating back to 1951. For 1984 the NHL changed it to H-H-A-A-A-H-H. This way would be retained for the following season's Finals before returning the current form.

The problem with that format was that it gave the team with the lesser regular season record an advantage if they could split the first two on the road.

I heard Clark Gillies complain about this to Fran Healy on a Fox Sports Net New York show.
Why would Gillies complain? The Oilers had the better record and were forced to play the first two games on the road.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2006, 04:24 AM
  #73
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertGQ
You're right. With your logic, they shouldn't have played games 3, 4, or 5 either since Roy was playing unbelievealbe and there was no way the Kings would be able to beat St.Patrick

Give your head a shake buddy
Relax son, I was just giving an opinion. No logic involved at all.

And if you read it I said "I don't know if." It's not like I'm stating a fact or a guarantee.

You're right about one thing though; Roy was playing unbelieveable hockey that spring.

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2006, 07:21 AM
  #74
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
And that's the problem here. People assume control to be the puck on the stick when the real question is posession. Hull was still in posession when he shot it in. Good goal using the most technical aspects of the rules at the time.

But idiot Sabres fans who also don't know the rules of how a lateral works just whine about a skate in the crease.
It wasn't a goal. If you change the rule AFTER the incident occurrs by sending out a league wide memo, you'll probably cover it up though.

KariyaIsGod* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2006, 08:24 AM
  #75
AdmiralPred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
Basically, the boredom generated from the Dallas-Buffalo final was enough for the refs to ignore the rulebook. Worked for me. I fell asleep three times during that game.
Geez, there was like 5 minutes left in the third overtime of a game played on the east coast(?) that ended at 1 or 2 in the morning, I'm sure a lot of people fell asleep during it. But yeah, on the overall it was one of the least exciting Finals in recent years.

I remeber watching that game thinking, damn, this is going to get called back and we're going to OT #4 but, they let the Stars celebrate and next thing you know it's 8 months later, and Buffalo gets whopped again in the Music City Miracle.

AdmiralPred 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 05:26 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.