HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

How many goals were disallowed because of skate in crease?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2011, 01:31 AM
  #1
Roomtemperature
Registered User
 
Roomtemperature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
How many goals were disallowed because of skate in crease?

Just curious if there is a place to find out with out having to go through alot of game summaries

Roomtemperature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 12:19 AM
  #2
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,632
vCash: 500
I don't know if they kept any stats on it at all. I think the most famous and detrimental goal that was called back was in 1998 when Boston scored an overtime goal in the playoffs vs. Washington that would have put them up 2-1 in the series. It was called back and then Washington won the game, and then the series.

Not sure if there has ever been one from that ridiculous Brian-Burke-promoted rule that hurt a team more

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 03:41 AM
  #3
supaman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton, usually
Country: Canada
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I don't know if they kept any stats on it at all. I think the most famous and detrimental goal that was called back was in 1998 when Boston scored an overtime goal in the playoffs vs. Washington that would have put them up 2-1 in the series. It was called back and then Washington won the game, and then the series.

Not sure if there has ever been one from that ridiculous Brian-Burke-promoted rule that hurt a team more
How about Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal? Dallas should've never won that cup. Especially with that goal. Kinda funny how the rule died with that one goal.

supaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 03:56 AM
  #4
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 3,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supaman View Post
How about Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal? Dallas should've never won that cup. Especially with that goal. Kinda funny how the rule died with that one goal.
This bothers me everytime I read or hear it. There is no guarantee that Sabres would win if Hull's goal was disallowed.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 04:47 AM
  #5
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supaman View Post
How about Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal? Dallas should've never won that cup. Especially with that goal. Kinda funny how the rule died with that one goal.
That goal was completely within the rules of the time.

TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 05:06 AM
  #6
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supaman View Post
How about Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal? Dallas should've never won that cup. Especially with that goal. Kinda funny how the rule died with that one goal.
Hasek lost the Stanley Cup on a nongoal against in Game 6 OT... he would be the bitterest person on this issue if he hadn't gotten the cup later on in Detroit.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 05:26 AM
  #7
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteofFlames View Post
That goal was completely within the rules of the time.
it wasn't though, that's the thing. The Stars themselves might not have even made it out of the first round had the Oilers not had so many goals called back on the same rule. My memory tells me that the Oilers had no fewer than 3 goals called back that series, and in a series that was decided by 4 one goal games, that could have been enough to knock them out of the playoffs in round one.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 07:45 AM
  #8
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteofFlames View Post
That goal was completely within the rules of the time.
I would disagree with that. The argument for why it was allowed usually includes that the puck was lose, thus Hull being allowed to stand in the crease. As a matter of fact, the puck was on Hasek and as such clearly not lose, only Hull poking at Hasek made the puck go free again. So in conclusion, Hull was standing in the crease before it was legal for him to be there.

That being said, Buffalo would have needed to score in game six AND win game seven in Dallas, so even if the goal doesn't count there chances aren't that good, though obviously better than having lost already

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 08:28 AM
  #9
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteofFlames View Post
That goal was completely within the rules of the time.
This.

The rule was that the skate COULD go in the crease if the puck was in there. His skate entered the crease while the puck was in the crease, so there was no violation, no matter how much Sabres fans have tried to spin it otherwise.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 11:35 AM
  #10
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
it wasn't though, that's the thing. The Stars themselves might not have even made it out of the first round had the Oilers not had so many goals called back on the same rule. My memory tells me that the Oilers had no fewer than 3 goals called back that series, and in a series that was decided by 4 one goal games, that could have been enough to knock them out of the playoffs in round one.
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.

The Sabres had three overtimes to win that game and couldn't. Sorry, you AREN'T the better team. Dallas was, on paper and on the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supaman View Post
How about Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal? Dallas should've never won that cup. Especially with that goal. Kinda funny how the rule died with that one goal.
Just so we're clear, the OP was talking about goals that were called back, not ones that SHOULD have been called back. So I still believe the most detrimental goal that was called back from that silly crease rule was PJ Axelsson's goal in overtime of Game 3 in the 1998 Wash/Bos series. Washington goes onto win the series. Ouch.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 01:54 PM
  #11
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
I believe that 3 Devils goals were disallowed in their 1997 upset loss to the Rangers. I don't think I ever forgave Steve Thomas or Bill Guerin for that garbage series. (I think it was Thomas twice, but don't quite remember).

In the 5 game loss, the Devils only scored 5 goals that counted. With 3 goals called back...

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 02:18 PM
  #12
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
it wasn't though, that's the thing. The Stars themselves might not have even made it out of the first round had the Oilers not had so many goals called back on the same rule. My memory tells me that the Oilers had no fewer than 3 goals called back that series, and in a series that was decided by 4 one goal games, that could have been enough to knock them out of the playoffs in round one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson View Post
I would disagree with that. The argument for why it was allowed usually includes that the puck was lose, thus Hull being allowed to stand in the crease. As a matter of fact, the puck was on Hasek and as such clearly not lose, only Hull poking at Hasek made the puck go free again. So in conclusion, Hull was standing in the crease before it was legal for him to be there.

That being said, Buffalo would have needed to score in game six AND win game seven in Dallas, so even if the goal doesn't count there chances aren't that good, though obviously better than having lost already

If memory serves, the official ruling was that a player who was ruled to be in possession of the puck was allowed to enter the crease, if following the puck. So, the argument was that Hull was in possession of the puck, and therefore good to go.


TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 02:24 PM
  #13
Johnny Engine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,230
vCash: 500
Maybe I was an excitable early teen at the time, but I remember it being just rampant. Like, at least one goal, often more, would be under review per game, and you could generally count on seeing a goal get called back.

The worst example of this that I can think of was a goal that I'm pretty sure Jochen Hecht scored for the Blues against Dallas in the second round. It ended up being called back, even though still screens showed Hecht's skate several inches outside the crease as the puck crossed the line. This was the goal that got Cherry on the "what if this effects the Stanley Cup-winning goal?" train, which of course, happened, inflating Cherry's ego just a little bit more.

It was one of those strange moments where the officials were so unequivocally wrong that it was impossible to say why the decision was made.

Johnny Engine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 10:25 PM
  #14
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
did scoring drop in 1998-99? I wonder how much of it can be attributed to goals called back.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 10:36 PM
  #15
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
did scoring drop in 1998-99? I wonder how much of it can be attributed to goals called back.
'96: 6.29 g/game
'97: 5.83
'98: 5.28
'99: 5.27

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2011, 11:14 PM
  #16
RECsGuy*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,478
vCash: 500
Should have never counted...


RECsGuy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2011, 11:22 AM
  #17
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
it wasn't though, that's the thing. The Stars themselves might not have even made it out of the first round had the Oilers not had so many goals called back on the same rule. My memory tells me that the Oilers had no fewer than 3 goals called back that series, and in a series that was decided by 4 one goal games, that could have been enough to knock them out of the playoffs in round one.
Brutal. Gimme a break.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TasteofFlames View Post
That goal was completely within the rules of the time.
True. Player with possession could step in. Hull kicked the rebound to himself then stepped in and fired.

Quote:
Originally Posted by supaman View Post
How about Brett Hull's Stanley Cup winning goal? Dallas should've never won that cup. Especially with that goal. Kinda funny how the rule died with that one goal.
I can't believe how many people there are still out there that cannot grasp the actual rule. The original rule was so a 2nd party couldn't interfere with the goalie in any way before the puck entered the crease, so they made it black and white that you could not have so much as a toe in the crease. However they did not include anything about a player with possession of the puck until a memo was sent out to every team regarding this later in the season. A player with possession of the puck is a totally different case. Brett Hull stepping in AFTER he deflected the puck in to Hasek, then stepping out, then back in AFTER he fished the rebound to himself is a totally legal play. It has nothing to do with PLAYER B stepping in before a PLAYER A shoots the puck.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2011, 11:25 AM
  #18
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 2,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson View Post
I would disagree with that. The argument for why it was allowed usually includes that the puck was lose, thus Hull being allowed to stand in the crease. As a matter of fact, the puck was on Hasek and as such clearly not lose, only Hull poking at Hasek made the puck go free again. So in conclusion, Hull was standing in the crease before it was legal for him to be there.

That being said, Buffalo would have needed to score in game six AND win game seven in Dallas, so even if the goal doesn't count there chances aren't that good, though obviously better than having lost already
Hasek never had possession of the puck. It was loose the whole time. Hull stepped in twice on the play. Once AFTER he deflected it in to Hasek, and again AFTER he fished the rebound to himself. Legal.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2011, 11:09 PM
  #19
Roomtemperature
Registered User
 
Roomtemperature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I believe that 3 Devils goals were disallowed in their 1997 upset loss to the Rangers. I don't think I ever forgave Steve Thomas or Bill Guerin for that garbage series. (I think it was Thomas twice, but don't quite remember).

In the 5 game loss, the Devils only scored 5 goals that counted. With 3 goals called back...
I remember that series that was infuriating.
Does anyone remember when it was something that was made a selling point in a video game? Maybe I'm crazy in mis remembering that

Roomtemperature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2011, 12:12 AM
  #20
Moonrock77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
However they did not include anything about a player with possession of the puck until a memo was sent out to every team regarding this later in the season. A player with possession of the puck is a totally different case. Brett Hull stepping in AFTER he deflected the puck in to Hasek, then stepping out, then back in AFTER he fished the rebound to himself is a totally legal play. It has nothing to do with PLAYER B stepping in before a PLAYER A shoots the puck.
As a Sabres fan watching back then, this is what gets me most about the whole situation. I don't remember any fan knowing about this "memo" until after the goal.

To this day I feel what really happened was that the referees totally missed the skate in the crease at the time due to the gravity of the situation and only when they realized what happened, did the league backtrack to the "memo" argument.

Maybe there was a memo sent out to the teams in the middle of the season, but none of the fans knew about it. That's why it sucked so bad. "Oh yeah, actually he's allowed to do that. Yeah, we let all the teams know before. Just not you. Sorry, no Stanley Cup for you". It still sucks.

Moonrock77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2011, 09:24 AM
  #21
BubbaBoot
Registered User
 
BubbaBoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mission Hill
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 10,955
vCash: 500
Tim Taylor Toe-In-The-Crease.

Bruins v Caps..... Bruin's PJ Axelsson scores an OT goal, seemingly giving the Bruins the series lead.....but the goal was called off as Tim Taylor, coming to a stop on the other side of the crease, away from the play, has the toe of his skate barely in the paint.

Goal waved off after a video review. The Caps later score and win the next game giving them a 3-1 series lead.

A potentially dagger-like win taken away and momentum swings for the Caps, who eventually win the series 4 games to 2.

The rule was changed for the following season, mainly because of this incident.

BubbaBoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2011, 12:41 PM
  #22
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RECsGuy View Post
Should have never counted...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonrock77 View Post
As a Sabres fan watching back then, this is what gets me most about the whole situation. I don't remember any fan knowing about this "memo" until after the goal.

To this day I feel what really happened was that the referees totally missed the skate in the crease at the time due to the gravity of the situation and only when they realized what happened, did the league backtrack to the "memo" argument.

Maybe there was a memo sent out to the teams in the middle of the season, but none of the fans knew about it. That's why it sucked so bad. "Oh yeah, actually he's allowed to do that. Yeah, we let all the teams know before. Just not you. Sorry, no Stanley Cup for you". It still sucks.
Since it appears that this video was missed, here is the official explanation from Dave Lewis, then NHL Director of Officiating and a man who has reffed over 1,000 NHL games. I think he knows what he's talking about.


TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2011, 12:53 PM
  #23
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roomtemperature View Post
I remember that series that was infuriating.
Does anyone remember when it was something that was made a selling point in a video game? Maybe I'm crazy in mis remembering that
Yes, the EA series had goals called of for it. It was just as hit and miss with that too

Poignant Discussion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2011, 04:12 PM
  #24
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaBoot View Post
Tim Taylor Toe-In-The-Crease.

Bruins v Caps..... Bruin's PJ Axelsson scores an OT goal, seemingly giving the Bruins the series lead.....but the goal was called off as Tim Taylor, coming to a stop on the other side of the crease, away from the play, has the toe of his skate barely in the paint.

Goal waved off after a video review. The Caps later score and win the next game giving them a 3-1 series lead.

A potentially dagger-like win taken away and momentum swings for the Caps, who eventually win the series 4 games to 2.

The rule was changed for the following season, mainly because of this incident.
Actually if you want to believe something crazy, this goal was in the 1998 playoffs. The rule stayed in play for the 1998-'99 season. After the Hull goal they HAD to change it back to the normal way that we know now. People forget, that prior to that the NHL was going to flirt with the idea of changing it back in the summer of 1999. The Hull goal sealed it.

By the way, I have never in my life seen a coach so enraged as Pat Burns was after that goal was called back. He was livid. And if you could read his lips.................

Also, this whole Stars/Sabres debate always gets carried away. Like many of you, I was there at the time and felt the mood of how things turned out. This is what I gather:

- the goal goes in, the Stars empty the bench and the Stanley Cup celebration starts on the ice. No one - I mean no one - wanted to be "that guy" that called that goal off. Lindy Ruff claims he confronted Bettman in the hallway about the goal and he walked away from him.
- every other goal similar to that in the last 3 years was called off. I literally saw a game where Brent Gihlcrist was in the crease and the goal was called off..........with the net empty and the goalie on the bench. So the NHL trying to justify it was lame

........................however

- it was a ridiculous rule that had nothing to do with the goalie most of the time. It didn't even affect the play 90% of the time. This is why I roll my eyes when Sabre fans think its unfair. That rule was unfair plain and simple. You let in a goal, live with it.
- Dallas was the better team on the ice, on paper and just all around. You saw that when you watched the series. The better team won, and that's the most important thing. Dallas wins Game 7 most likely

Lastly, does anyone else remember that when Brian Burke had what is now Shanahan's position that he was the biggest fan of this rule. Even when a monkey could see that it was sucking the very fabric out of the game he defended it. "The players need to get used to it" he said. I just thought it was classic Burke then how stubborn the man could be when he was 100% wrong

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2011, 09:43 PM
  #25
Moonrock77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

- it was a ridiculous rule that had nothing to do with the goalie most of the time. It didn't even affect the play 90% of the time. This is why I roll my eyes when Sabre fans think its unfair. That rule was unfair plain and simple. You let in a goal, live with it.
- Dallas was the better team on the ice, on paper and just all around. You saw that when you watched the series. The better team won, and that's the most important thing. Dallas wins Game 7 most likely
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.

Moonrock77 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 08:25 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.