New name for the CCSLC

[buffalofan2106]

I grew up in Buffalo and wish I was still there... if I could find a good job and not pay the taxes

count me

[philly97flyer]

"Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If a player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequently the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the apparent goal shall not be allowed."

Ask yourself: does it mention ANYTHING about possession?

Uh, NO!!!!!!!!!

Any interpretation of the rule made by an independant body or even the league itself prior to the playoffs would have ruled no goal. The league had blown off similar goals where a player "had possesion" and re-entered the crease all year long. The finals were a different scenario however. The refs blew the call and lost control of the game when the Stars bench emptied onto the ice. They couldn't review the play after that. The league, faced with controversy, and a cup that had allready been awarded, backpeddled and came up with the bit about "having possession" to cover their ass. They immediately dropped the rule for next season because of the controversy.

The puck came out and Hull put his toe in before he brought the puck back in.

No goal!

Possesion isn't mentioned in that rule, but it has been a rule since the beginning of hockey time that a player does not lose possesion when the goalie makes a save unless the goalie controls the rebound. "Puck posession" doesn't have to be stated in that rule per se, the rule said a player may not enter the crease prior to the puck, which Hull did not. His foot stayed in the crease while the puck came back out and then reentered. You can look it up again if you want, but I distinctly remember goals being allowed when a player had his foot in the crease but still had posession of the puck regardless.

[SabreGuy]

Are we doing a Buffalo roll-call in here? If so, count me in. I've been coming to this site for quite a while now, but it was only about a month ago that it dawned on me that they actually had a message board. I'm a little slow about these things sometimes.

[iconoclast]

Are we doing a Buffalo roll-call in here?  If so, count me in.  I've been coming to this site for quite a while now, but it was only about a month ago that it dawned on me that they actually had a message board.  I'm a little slow about these things sometimes.

Yep, you're from Buffalo, alright.

I thought about starting a thread like this after seeing all the Buffalonians come forward after the slug reared its ugly "head." Let's keep up the pressure on the slug!

I'm a Sabres fan, and I approved this message.

[Sabrejeff]

I'm in Buffalo.

As for the Hull "goal", the rule never stated anything about possession. "Possession" was in the mysterious memo the NHL put out before the playoffs, despite anybody in hockey ever remember seeing it or any evidence of it whatsoever.

Either way, I blame Brian Holzinger and Terry Gregson.

[LoligerBS]

Buffalo Resident Here.

[sammysabre]

In Buffalo

[enjoyincubus122]

proud buffalonian here

[Cyclopsis Joe]

And right, it WAS a forward latteral...

Not in Nashville.

[eSabre]

I'm in Buffalo.

As for the Hull "goal", the rule never stated anything about possession. "Possession" was in the mysterious memo the NHL put out before the playoffs, despite anybody in hockey ever remember seeing it or any evidence of it whatsoever.

Either way, I blame Brian Holzinger and Terry Gregson.

Yeah, it was Holzinger's fault. If he wasn't such a , he could've nailed Hull and there wouldn't have been a shot. And possession was never in the rule, so it's irrelevant.

...and yes, I am from Buffalo.

[Nick 1733]

And right, it WAS a forward latteral...

Not in Nashville.

Or Denver for that matter

[KevinMcD]

Buffalonian here also.

Hull's Goal should not have counted. But we still probably would have not won that series. Same with the Music City Miracle, we would not have won the Super Bowl that year.

[ROCHitman]

"Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If a player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequently the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the apparent goal shall not be allowed."

Ask yourself: does it mention ANYTHING about possession?

Uh, NO!!!!!!!!!

Any interpretation of the rule made by an independant body or even the league itself prior to the playoffs would have ruled no goal. The league had blown off similar goals where a player "had possesion" and re-entered the crease all year long. The finals were a different scenario however. The refs blew the call and lost control of the game when the Stars bench emptied onto the ice. They couldn't review the play after that. The league, faced with controversy, and a cup that had allready been awarded, backpeddled and came up with the bit about "having possession" to cover their ass. They immediately dropped the rule for next season because of the controversy.

The puck came out and Hull put his toe in before he brought the puck back in.

No goal!

Possesion isn't mentioned in that rule, but it has been a rule since the beginning of hockey time that a player does not lose possesion when the goalie makes a save unless the goalie controls the rebound. "Puck posession" doesn't have to be stated in that rule per se, the rule said a player may not enter the crease prior to the puck, which Hull did not. His foot stayed in the crease while the puck came back out and then reentered. You can look it up again if you want, but I distinctly remember goals being allowed when a player had his foot in the crease but still had posession of the puck regardless.

A shooter who releases a shot after the which creates a rebound DOES NOT have possession of the puck. HIs posession ends once it leaves the stick. He can re-gain possesion, as was the case with Hull, but his possession does not continue through the shot and the rebound.

NO GOAL!

[MC Buffalo]

Buffalonian Here as well.

[Roger Clemente]

The thing about the rule that's really hard to interpret is that the rebound was in the crease, then Hull used his skate to kick the puck to his stick. The puck was in the crease during the moment his skate entered the crease AND he was kicking it to his stick, which was outside the crease. It should count as possession, and of course, did.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[PuFFer23]

I'm 60 miles south of Buffalo count me! The only Buffalo team I like is the sabers and I like there new logo with the buffaslug ! the current ones suck with the goats head. the old ones where go in there day!

[youcan'tseeme]

The thing about the rule that's really hard to interpret is that the rebound was in the crease, then Hull used his skate to kick the puck to his stick. The puck was in the crease during the moment his skate entered the crease AND he was kicking it to his stick, which was outside the crease. It should count as possession, and of course, did.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

exactly he brought it out, while his foot was in the crease. It's a goal, nad it's gonna stay a goal. Plus Even if that was no goal Buffalo would have lost anyways cause they were against vintage Eddie Belfour and when Eddie's on his game there's no one better!

[josh_cat_eyes]

I am from prince edward island...is there anyone else from atlantic Canada?

...oh and I am an all Toronto fan...even though each team in every sport is not doing very good.

[eSabre]

The thing about the rule that's really hard to interpret is that the rebound was in the crease, then Hull used his skate to kick the puck to his stick. The puck was in the crease during the moment his skate entered the crease AND he was kicking it to his stick, which was outside the crease. It should count as possession, and of course, did.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

There was never anything about possession in the rule, or rulebook. That's the thing that makes it so maddening. They just claimed the rule was altered and threw this bull excuse out there to cover their asses.

Skate in the crease = disallowed. End of story.

Dumb rule, but you gotta follow your own guidelines, and they didn't.

[gbasalmon]

Just like typical Buffalo sports fans, arguing ad nauseum about something that happened almost ten years ago now. Build a bridge, get over it. Debates like this and the ones that happen over at hockeybuzz.com make me almost ashamed to be a Sabres fan.