Conclusive explanation it was a goal

by Brandon Worley on Jun 22, 2009 1:55 PM CDT in General Comment 12 comments

This past weekend we've relived the glory and joy that we all experienced 10 years ago when the Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup. With this celebration, we've also had to hear again how "70% of the hockey world is convinced the goal shouldn't have counted."

As part of their 10 year anniversary feature, DallasStars.com has released some bonus footage from after the game, including this PERFECT explanation for why it was a goal. This comes from Hockey Night in Canada broadcaster Ron MacLean's interview with NHL director of officiating Bryan Lewis on Brett Hull's overtime winner.

That's it. I don't want to see anymore still, overhead photos saying "His foot was in the crease! See! See!! It's not fair!!"

No more. It counted. Live with it.

There's also another great video in the same feature of never before released footage of the plane ride home with the Stanley Cup.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If Only ESPN Had Him On...

…I think a lot of the ‘controversy’ from the goal would have been mitigated.

Instead, they and a many other culpable people in the MSM allowed it to fester. In fact, ESPN never really reversed course on this until they televised the Stars-Penguins season opener in 1999-00 when they had Gary Bettman on during the game and Gary Thorne admitted that, “While we spent much of the summer thinking that goal was not a good goal, it was, in fact, a legitimate goal.”

But instead of getting Lewis or anybody else from the NHL on to diffuse the controversy, they let it fester.

Defending Big D | TheStarsFans | But a Hawks fan since 1989

by Brandon Bibb on Jun 22, 2009 4:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think we performed an important public service, providing the impetus (one of many) for the elimination of that stupid rule.

Disallowing goals…it’s the exact opposite of what they’ve been trying to do for years now.

by Brad Gardner on Jun 22, 2009 10:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Thanks for posting this Brandon, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that footage, not even the stuff in the locker room. Kick ass.

by Wolfgangus on Jun 23, 2009 12:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It was a goal. I’ve argued ‘til I’m blue in the face with veteran hockey people that it was, and there are some who just don’t want to change their minds.

You could always enter the crease to go after the puck.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jun 23, 2009 6:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Full Story

As much as it should have been a goal in traditional hockey, that is the type of play that happened many times throughout the year…possession was not a factor during the regular season; if a player’s foot was in the crease at all the goals were disallowed. Then the NHL, after screwing this up put their spin on it so the reason people still argue that it was no goal is because throughout that entire season a goal like that was constantly disallowed. So according to the NHL’s spin it was a goal, but according to precedent and the rule book that year, it was a tainted title.

by Chuds on Jun 23, 2009 11:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You are mistaken

As much as it should have been a goal in traditional hockey, that is the type of play that happened many times throughout the year…possession was not a factor during the regular season; if a player’s foot was in the crease at all the goals were disallowed.

99.9% of the goals that were overturned using the crease rule as the basis were because a player other than the goal scorer entered the crease prior to the puck. On the Hull goal, he became the possessor of the puck the moment he deflected Jere Lehtinen’s shot from the half boards.

Rebounds off a goaltender’s equipment do not constitute a change in possession. And since Hasek never controlled the rebound, possession never changed from the point Hull deflected Lehtinen’s point shot to the time the puck crossed the goal line.

But even if you think possession DID somehow change while the puck was rattling around off Hasek’s equipment, you can’t tell me the act of kicking the puck into a shooting position (while both were outside the crease) isn’t demonstrating control of the puck.

But even if the NHL botched the call on the goal…

So according to the NHL’s spin it was a goal, but according to precedent and the rule book that year, it was a tainted title.

Does that make the Islanders Cup in 1980 tainted since they were offside on the play that led to Bobby Nystrom’s OT winner?

Bad calls in officiating are just like bad breaks in all of sports. They may be influenced by the actions of the players on the ice/field of play. But in the end, the decision is completely out of the hands of either team.

To try and demean a championship based on that is offensive to me. It’s not Dwyane Wade’s fault that officiating played such a big role in Game 5 of the 2006 NBA Finals.

Defending Big D | TheStarsFans | But a Hawks fan since 1989

by Brandon Bibb on Jun 23, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reply

Does that make the Islanders Cup in 1980 tainted since they were offside on the play that led to Bobby Nystrom’s OT winner?

…Yes, it does. It doesn’t mean that their names are off the cup, but based on your own omission, officiating plays a role in the outcomes of games as it did for Dallas and Buffalo. Again, the possession point was never a factor until after the Hull controversy; that’s when the NHL rolled out their memo arguement regarding possession, after the fact to try and save face. The NHL was not going to pull their celebration off the ice and continue the game, so they did their best to explain it away, after Game 6 of the Finals, citing a memo that wasn’t in place all year. It doesn’t mean that Dallas wouldn’t have won anyway, but every team, Buffalo that year, Pittsburgh this year, the NYI in the 80s, etc. need skill and luck to win and Dallas caught a break that year.

by Chuds on Jun 23, 2009 12:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

Solid takes on your part.

But reasonable people can disagree :o)

Defending Big D | TheStarsFans | But a Hawks fan since 1989

by Brandon Bibb on Jun 23, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly....I wish that this goal never happened like it did.

Because it not only put a black eye on the Cup, but also has made people forget how special that Stars team was.

It’s also made people forget how great that series was.

Defending Big D: A Dallas Stars blog on SBN: easy to use, free to join.

by Brandon Worley on Jun 23, 2009 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Both elation over winning and bitterness over losing are better without controversy

by Chuds on Jun 23, 2009 1:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That’s why I tend to ignore the fact that there was controversy, because in reality, the only ones who felt there has ever been a controversy have been Sabre fans that are also convinced the uprights in Super Bowl 25 wern’t perfectly upright at 90 degree angles.

by Art_M on Jun 23, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fans

I wouldn’t even bother to compare the two events. There was no controversy in the 90s with the Bills, they just partied too hard the night before and lost a game they should have won. No one in the football world believes the officials cost the Bills in that Super Bowl, they hurt themselves. I live in Nevada but know for a fact that people in Buffalo don’t blame every loss on the officials, just when there is a case to be made, ie. Hulls’ skate, the goal through the side of the net against Philly. But it is more than just sabres or Dallas fans in the hockey world who can agree or disagree whether or not Hull’s goal should’ve counted. Writers, broadcasters, and fans not associated with the sabres have differing opinions with many, not all on the side of Buffalo. That’s to be expected…

by Chuds on Jun 23, 2009 2:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs