No Goal!

Daryl and I went to a Sabres game and it made me remember this...

It was June 19, 1999-game six of the Stanley Cup. The Buffalo Sabres had made it to this point and all of Buffalo was excited! I was taking gross anatomy in Rochester that summer. It was such an exciting time, that I even got some of my college friends who didn't know anything about hockey into the playoffs. I didn't have a TV in my dorm, but thankfully the guys next door did and they would let us borrow their TV to watch the games. Well, it was game 6 and I just had to go home and watch a game in Buffalo with the fam. So, I took my friends to Buffalo. Mom made us a good pre-game dinner and we all sat around the TV. It was an exciting game, but frustrating and LONG! Dad had gotten annoyed and so stressed out, that he went out to the garage to load some samples into his car. Then it happened...the game went into the early morning into triple overtime when the "goal" was scored giving the Dallas Stars a 2-1 victory and the Stanley Cup. Dad missed the whole thing and when I ran out to tell him the news he was very upset! The goal shouldn't have happened though. Here is a little background from an article....

"The rule that caused all the trouble no longer exists. At the time, players were not allowed in the goalie's crease unless the puck was already there.

When Brett Hull scored his early morning Cup-winner in June, it looked like a classic case of no goal:

Hull shoots; Sabres goalie Dominik Hasek saves.

The rebound bounces outside the crease.

With his skate, Hull kicks the puck forward to his stick. But as he is kicking the puck, his left skate slides into the blue paint. If you freeze that moment, Hull is guilty. He's in the crease, the puck isn't.

With his left skate planted in the crease, Hull shoots again. This time he scores. The Stars celebrate, the Sabres freak out.

So how did the NHL justify the decision to let the goal stand? Here's what Bryan Lewis, NHL Supervisor of Officials, had to say:

"A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post or an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession, and therefore Hull would be deemed to be in possession or control of the puck, allowed to shoot and score a goal even though the one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck.

"Hull had possession and control of the puck. The rebound off the goalie does not change anything. It is his puck then to shoot and score albeit a foot may or may not be in the crease prior to."

So in the NHL's view, the entire sequence - shot, rebound, kick, second shot - constitutes one instance of "possesion" by Brett Hull. As long as he and the puck are one, his presence in the crease is not illegal.

I'm afraid that's as clear as I can make it. It's all very murky. Throughout the season, goals very similar to Hull's had been disallowed. Considering all the evidence, I conclude that the league blew the call and then scrambled like hell to cover its butt."