When Hull scored his series-clinching goal in triple overtime of game six his foot was in the crease but the puck was not. Subsequent to the series ending goal, the NHL claimed to have sent out a memo clarifying the "skate in the crease" rule that allowed goals in instances where the goalscorer maintained control (not possession) of the puck prior to entering the crease. On this play Hull kicked the puck with his left skate (while still outside of the crease) into a shooting position.
ed belfour was terrific that year. but hasek was so great it took an illegal goal to take the stanley cup from him.... if i was a dallas fan i wouldnt even feel as great as i could have with a sad goal like that great series..... it's good this rule's gone now but... ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL CALL BY NHL OFFICIALS DISGRACEFUL DAY FOR PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY.... IT TOOK POWERHOUSE DALLAS AN ILLEGAL GOAL TO BEAT THE SABRES a very disgraceful day for hockey... absolute shame to ruin a amazing series
that rule was stupid. nhl wanted more goals and they disallowed so many, that goal should have been disallowed with the rules, but at least it got rid of the shitty rule.
@ActoneSUCKA they could! but itd still be dallas' cup! we won it fair and fucking square. the goal counted. hull had possession of the puck so his foot in the crease didnt matter.
@BBBfights seriously? i hope you wouldnt repeat this statement now that the ownership issue is resolved and the stars have proven that they are a damn good team. as of right now as i am posting this comment the stars are tied for 2nd in the western conference EVEN THOUGH SEVERAL OF OUR TOP PLAYERS ARE OUT DUE TO INJURY not to mention were on top of the whole league before the injuries. modano and richards were great players. but the team is not suffering now that theyre gone.
@Tomko401 do u know wht else sucks the Dallas stars! Just because they one that cup BIG DEAL! It's just one, the only one u guys ever got since 1999, and at least Buffalo made it to the playoffs last year!
How can you Sabres fans say that it should have not counted. What was Brett supposed to do? Tell Hasek, " here, i'll tap the puck to your glove. He wanted to score for crying out loud! I guess Hasek's style failed him on that play. Today a lot of goals are scored with players having their skates in the crease. You can't stop the play when the puck is loose in the crease and the goalie has no clue where the puck is.
@CONTRAHABS You clearly have no perspective on this argument. Sabres fans aren't blaming Brett Hull for the goal, this is clearly the ref's fault. His foot was clearly in the crease and thus this goal should have been erased. You say today a lot of goals are scored with players' whose feet are in the crease. OBVIOUSLY, THEY CHANGED THE RULE! Back in '99, with those rules, this shouldn't have counted.
@S3ymourButtz Whatever man. Brett gets pushed pushed by the defenseman and i'd be blaming your defenseman for this goal more than Brett's skate. As Hasek was going to freeze the puck your defenseman got in the way.
@TheGoalieGuru False. In 1999, the rule was if a player had possession of he puck he was NOT allowed in the crease. The rule changed the following season.
hasek sucks right? thats why he has 5 vezina trophies and held the record for highest save percentage and i play goalie i have for the past 6 years and some of the saves hes made blow my fucking mind.. hes better then most goalies today and no1 will ever play like him again
@lacrosse16sh Buffalo was a defense first team and gave up vey few quality scoring chances. It was team success not Hasek success. Want a little proof. When Hasek had no help, the shootout, he had terrible stats!!!
@TheGoalieGuru Oh, i wasn't talking about when he was with buffalo specifically. and i honestly don't know much about his/the team's stats when he was with them. I was just saying even with his unorthodox style a lot of people consider him one of the greats
@S3ymourButtz I wasn't referring to any particular years!
But if that isn't good enough for ya maybe this will be...
Hasek won the Vezina in 2000/01 with a goals against average of 2.11 and a save percentage of .921. He left to go to Detroit the next season. He was replaced by a young guy who had never been a number one. That new young goalie played 72 games and had a 2.22 GAA and a .915 save percentage in 2001/02. That same season Hasek had a 2.17 GAA and a .915.
i have 1 question 4 everyone weather you say it's a goal or no goal why would lindy ruff be so upset at the call doesn't he know the rule book to and why do the versus commentators call it out No goal everytime the situation is brought up ?
@iloveryanmiller leino was a HORRIBLE signing and ehrhoff is good but not worth a ten year deal, pegula got too impatient and tried to do too much in a bad free agent market, i think you're gonna be very disappointed next year
who cares who ''made the dumb rule''.It was a very clear and strictly enforced rule that year.Many times that year buffalo had goals waved off(as did other teams) for the same exact type of goal.Rules are rules.The league blew it,and lied about it,and tried to make it go away.How do you expect people to just ignore it.People like you are assholes that just go along with anything anyone says.Get a back bone you pussy!
Fuck all of you. WOW the tip of his skate was in the crease. Who gives a shit? Did it really affect the outcome of the shot? NO. He would have made it if he was an inch back as well. I'm just glad Brett won a cup!
@toadman842 Yeah, I agree with you that it didn't affect the shot, but the point is, it was against the rules at the time. It was a dumb rule, but the goal shouldn't have counted.
@toadman842 The rule in 1999 was EXTREMLY strict on any player not going into the Goaltenders crease at no time for any reason. So yea it did effect the outcome of the game. It should be No Goal.
Oh btw the NHL Changed the rule the next day to what it is now
@toadman842 The rules were very strict.You cannot be in the crease.During the regular season that year there were many,many goals dis allowed for having a part of your skate in the crease. If rules don't matter,why not just pick the puck up with your hand and throw it in the net? So when you say''fuck all of you'',were laughing at your sorry ass.You are to dumb to understand!
@peak199 I stand by what I said in my original post. It would have been a pussy call to nullify the goal. Nothing worth bitching about or being bitter about over ten years later.
@toadman842 Whos bitter? I only responded because you act like you know what your talking about.Rules are rules unless they apply to you I guess.Talk about a pussy move.You don't have the balls to stand up for what is right,no matter what team you root for.
clearly like the tip of his blade was i nthe crease but reallly whos the fuckhead who made that stupid rule. it was a great goal by hull the goalie messed up and could have saved it the tip of hulls skate was in no where near the goalie if his skate interfered with the goal then id say yup no faol but the goalie dived for the puck so he obviuosly tried to stop it i say goal and i say the refs made a pretty bs call. i think buffalo deserves a freaking trophy or something they work hard
I don't know if technically it was a goal or not. I am a sabres fan so at the time I was pretty pissed. But now looking at it there should have never been any type of rule that deals with player possession because in hockey possession is lost and gained in split seconds they say hull had possession the while time that's y it was allowed but if it was a delayed penalty As soon as Hasek touched it they would have blown the whistle claiming the stars lost possession. So whatever it happened it's o
@johonig420 I dont know if thats true. You see it a lot where the puck hits a guy or his stick but they still dont blow it down on a delayed penalty because they dont constitute that as possession. And while Im in the 100% belief that it was a legit goal because of the actual explanation of the rule beyond the black and white, I agree with you 100% that the NHL was stupid to make a rule like that one. It caused too many problems and too much confusion.Fortunately they got rid of the crease rule.
A goal is a goal...sorry sabres fans. Dallas owned you in the 90s. First the cowboys then this. Ouch. I bet all those touchdowns shouldn't have counted either! Whhaaaaaaaaaaa
If Brian Holzinger does not skate through the crease and kick the puck out of Hasek's glove, this conversation never happens. I love the Sabres, and I think the NHL, according to the rules at the time, missed the call, but Holzinger did not check Hull, and he kicked the puck away from Hasek. That goal was and still is on Holzinger.
@TheCarneyjoey Almost every year ??? Uuhh, they've been there twice in 40 years. And Hull was the shooter so he was allowed to step in with possession.
If that was an average player say Richard Schmelik and in the 1st period that would have not been a goal. However it was Brett Hull (had not won a Stanley Cup yet) and it was in the 3rd OT period of the cup finals. Of course they were going to give it him.
The people who decided are professionals. I agree with them on this call, because it is too close for a biased fan to call him or herself. There are rare occasions where refs blatently miss calls, but this was not one of them. It was just the circumstances that made it so hyped up. No one would have given a crap about this goal if it was midway through the season and not the finals.
@Gills30, They did have replay, goal stood because it was deemed Hull was in continuous possession of the puck. At the time a rebound or shot off the post didnt constitute a change in possession from one player to another. Therefore, Brett Hull's first shot (which was outside the crease) which rebounded and he then kicked and regained control of was still considered the original possession and thus the goal stood.
I do agree tho that the goal shouldn't have counted,it was a very poor exception
This will sting every year until we win a Cup. But I tell you what, when I see Ryan Miller raise Lord Stanley's trophy up high, I'm going to be bawling like a little girl.
This is a great example of why ESPN is only good at covering the most irrelevant moments in sports.....(the NY Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, Terrell Owens, and drug busts.) and should stick to said irrelevant moments, and most trendy.
ESPN barely had an interest in the NHL at the time- and were quick to pawn it off- but had it not been for ESPN camera-men storming the ice this very good series could've ended the way it should have. Maybe Dallas would've won anyways, nobody in Texas would care.
@davey7678 Nobody would care ? Come on man. The Stars are pretty popular. One of the successful sunbelt teams. Theyve been among the most profitable in the league since moving to Dallas. Quit ASSuming.
@davey7678 Paid Gretzky ? Ha ha get real. They changed the rule of course but it would have changed regardless because it was a problem all season. They were admitting it was a dumb rule in the 1st place, not admitting they f'd up on that particuliar play. At the time the goal was scored,the player with possession was exempt.As for the media, thats kind of a moot point wether they played a role or not since the goal was in fact legal. They did review it and give an explanation immediately after.
@marineaviator2011 Ya but after Hasek bobbled it. It went into Hasek then back out. Thats when Hull kicked it to his stick. But ya its possession either way and a good goal.
In football we screwed ourselves but in hockey the refs do that. Even if that was technically a goal this time it's like every year either they make a terrible call when we need it. Or one our guys get hurt (vanek) and all the refs do is give the guy on their team something like a hooking.
I don't like either of these teams personally, but I could see how buffalo fans would be pissed. He was technically in the crease about an inch or two maybe if that he did have possession though, tough call but any other day of the week this goal wouldn't have even been reviewed and would just be a goal.
Ya. Unless you were the shooter ( Which Hull was ) or if the puck had already entered the crease and your team had possession. Which was the case on this goal. GOAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He still has possession BECAUSE it's a rebound. Hasek never took possession of the puck. A rebound save does not take away possession from the offending player. Have you ever noticed how players get assists even after rebounds happen? If a player shoots the puck and it bounces off the goalie's pad and another player scores, the first player gets an assist because possession was never changed between the teams. It's the same thing here. Hasek never took possession so it's still Hull's.
@Conquerer13 HOWEVER at this time in hockey the RULES STATED you CAN NOT be in the crease and score a goal. The ruling was changed the year after so look it up before you make dumb ass assumptions.
@thisXwar Maybe know your shit before you go around calling someone a dumbass. The rules in 1999 said you couldn't be in the crease WITHOUT POSSESSION when a goal was scored. This means a player couldn't stand in the crease when another player scored. Hull's foot was in the crease but he had the puck. Therefore under the rules it was a good goal. Next time learn your shit instead of talking out of your ass, kid.
@jblgti146 Ha ha. You classless, ignorant, uneducated piece of shit. Hull kicked the puck to his stick ( possession ), then planted his skate, then shot. That's possession. I don't know how many players have ever shot the puck in the net without having possession. Never heard of that one before you cluless bastard. Ha ha.
@jblgti146 Try again fool. Alberta. But if I did live in Texas, what difference would that make ? I dont know where youre from and I dont care. It doesnt matter. Im going by your comments. Thats what reflects your knowledge. Or lack of. Stick to the conversation. The facts. Hull had the puck. That makes him the shooter. That means he had possession. Many, including yourself, fail to recognize that.
@tjcurrie Youtube is no place for intellectual excellence, therefore , I will show none. Especially to a Canadian. Im just fucking pissed about this goal, and how the league handled it. It is incorrect for you to say he had possession. You do not know that. But we cant change that now so fuck it. NO GOAL
@jblgti146 Well thats good because youre achieveing your goal of not showing any. How is it incorrect for me to say he had possession ? HE KICKED THE PUCK TO HIS STICK. HE SHOT THE PUCK. THATS POSSESSION. The last 2 touches of that puck were from Hull. Thats like watching Mario Lemieux's famous split the D goal vs Minnesota in 91, or Bobby Orr's Cup winner vs St.Louis and saying they didnt have possession either. You may aswell. You said it yourself. Youre just pissed. Thats all.
@j0rdrum Check the facts, please. Do yourself a favour. Everybody who still leaves themsleves in the dark about this should educate themselves. BRETT HULL WAS THE SHOOTER. THAT GIVES HIM POSSESSION. ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE A SKATE IN THE CREASE. Not to mention the puck already entered the crease area, making it legal. Go check every other goal that was disallowed. Theyre all where one guy was the shooter, and another player was in the crease. Completely different.
Wow- You do realize the NHL had to pay Wayne Gretzky a lot of money to advocate for his buddy Brett Hull, and change the rules a month later to make it look like it was a goal, right? At the time; a skate in the crease was enough to dis-allow a goal. AGAIN- the media ended this series by storming the ice.
@Spiller716 Actually interfering with the goalie would be different. That would be a whole nother story. The foot in the crease rule had it's own stipulations and one of those stipulations was that if you had possession you could step in and also that the crease was in play once the puck entered. The puck entered already as Lehtinen fired it into Hasek. All Hull did was step in, step out, kick the puck to his stick (possession), step back in, and shoot. Totally legal.
in your mind it was legal but the rule book was different every bullshit call thats made in any sport has a cover up to it your saying it was legal but commentators on versus thinks of your opinion different you want the interview link ??????
@Spiller716 You can send me any link you want to. And I will watch it. But Ive watched plenty of explanations on the goal and theyre all saying it's legal. Besides, anybody can have their opinions but fact is fact and going by the rules at that time ( fact ) it was a legal goal. Hull had possession of the puck. Bottom line. In the rule book that was legal. It's inarguable. People just dont want to look any further than "his foot was in the crease", without realizing it wasnt as black and white
maybe the rule book didnt say anything about posession?????cause if it did lindy ruff wouldnt of been pissed and the commentators on versus wouldnt be saying that it was a bad call they know the rule just as good as NHL offcials we just got cheated thats no hard feelinz
@Spiller716 Ya it was actually in the rule book. They read it on air. Its been explained. Ruff and those commentators, and I guess other fans are just looking at it as plain black and white as a I said. Thinking that his foot was in the crease, therefore it's not goal. It was a stupid rule that caused problems on every play where it was involved. This goal included. Except this goal was different because it was the shooter in the crease and the puck already entered making the crease in play.
no the NHL Brainwashed you into thinking that because it was a bad call that they knew they had to make up something...what about the goal that went threw the side of the net on the sabres it clearly was on tv and air as you say and they still didnt call it back ???explain that ?
@Spiller716 No actually that was the rule. Not allowed in the crease without possession. Thats why when you would see one player shoot the puck into the net, with another player standing in the crease, they would call it back. Hull's goal was completely different. He WAS the shooter. He HAD possession. Totally different. The LeClair goal was a totally different play. It was brutal but it has nothing to do with Hull's goal.Neither does when Nelson Emerson threw the puck into the net with the Jets
ok kid stay being brainwashed while ex nhl players say it was no goal and people like you who believe in the posession bullshit and btw it were plenty of goals that year identical to hulls that year that were called back not similiar they were identical
@Spiller716 Ha ha okay kid. I will kid. Its not brainwashed at all. Its knowing the actual rule and being able to look beyond the 1st layer of it all. Go look around you'll find I am right. Even Gretzky says it was a goal if you wanna talk ex players. You can throw that out there that there was plenty of identical goals called back but you're just throwing that out there. You actually have no idea. But seriously go look around. You will see it explained the exact way Im telling you. Inarguable.
i already seen it just like every other bad call the nhl makes up shit to cover it up and how you gonna say im talking about ex nhl players and you just said wayne gretzky said it was a goal hes a ex nhl player????
@Spiller716 You said "ex NHL players say it was no goal." Gretzky himself said it was a legit goal. He's an ex player. You can keep thinking it's all a cover up if you want. Obviously nothing is gonna change your mind. But it was actually explained in the official NHL rulebook. Not a cover up, and not made up AFTER the goal. That's a fact. I dont even need to say anything else.
@Spiller716 Classy man. Classy. I like the Sabres and all but some teams just werent meant to win. And if you ever do win it, it wont be on Tomas Vanek's shoulders. GOOOAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!
@joshsauter U mad cause your team hasn't won shit in 40 years. Some franchises just weren't meant to win anything. Only actual pussies mouth off like that on the net. They cant do it in real life so they resort to this. You're a true internet tough guy.
whats sad is that the Buffalo Sabres, a Buffalo NHL team, got their hearts torn apart again by another Dallas based team, this time the Starts in this game, if you don't think the Cowboys slaughtered the Bills enough, damn, it's like having salt put in your open wound
Its a goal. This play is completely different than the goals that were called back all year where one guy has a toe in the crease and another shoots the puck. The puck already went into the crease on this play. Making the crease in play. But the biggest factor is that Hull had possession. Simple as that. He kciked the puck to his stick. He was the shooter. He plants his foot after kicking it then shoots it. Its inarguable. The injustice would have been if it was called back.
I know. It sucks for buffalo. But you're just making excuses. Really. Its not like it was a game 7 right?
Its not like hull kicked hasek in the face?! I feel bad for buffalo. Especially because dallas has taken like 4 championships from their fingers. Thats got to be frustrating.
But the rule is there to keep people from being in the crease and blocking the goalies view... right??
you know damn well hashek was always laying on his back.... it cost buffalo the championship.
the goal was good, listen to the Supervisor of Refs : 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.
and enough with the "forward pass" get ur biased heads out ur asses and look at a number of replays that show it was a lateral!
this is what i have a hard time with all of u that say its not good. and for those of u who say with our treplay system not it would have been called back. but the NHL and every offical who reviewed that goal then and until now still say good goal. every "EXPERT" in the rules and reviewing say its a good goal. The only people who cry about it and say its no good are the fans of buffalo and the media from bufallo. If everyone says its good but u then geuss what its most likely good.
@kingpincmk your tired of sabres fans treating dallas fans like shit??? come on, buffalo fans have to sit through absolute shit year in and year out whether its the bills or the sabres. sabres fan can complain all they want because buffalo is the first city that deserve a championchip. dallas has so many championchips in every sport so cut buffalo fans a break.
so let me get this straight Your city deserves a championship more then anyone due to the fact yall have either sucked more then anyone or the fact yall have been to the big game but not good enough to win it more then anyone.
yeah if u seriously think that then every team in every league in every sport should be awarded the championship every year. Sorry buffalo ur luck sucks against any dallas team.
No shit we have bad luck. The point is it's easy for people to be Dallas fans. You win a lot. You have a beautiful city with a great economy. As sports fans, you don't know what it's like to really suffer. Buffalonians have been through so much, "No Goal" "Wide Right", "Music City Forward Pass". Of course nobody is entitled to a championship. But for the amount of times Buffalo has had its heart ripped out because of sports, you have to agree it would be great to see Buffalo win a championship
yeah i gotta agree its gotta suck to come so close to lose it. right now cant say much for dallas teams yeah cowboys sorta getting back on track but stars doing terrible mavs are ok and well rangers..............well we are nto going into that right now.
@mark224 A totally legal goal, a kicker failing to score from a distance that was two yards short of his record, and losing 'cos of a miracle play. Luck has nothing to do with any of it. I call it not performing aka sucking.
@mark224 i have to agree..the bills alone are one of the biggest choking franchises of all time, NY state other than the yankees is the worst, we have the mets, ny rangers, knicks, jets, bills
I live about 1.5 hours away from Buffalo though. Even though I'm a Dallas fan, I want to see either the Bills or Sabres captures a championship. Upstate NY fans have heart.
@mark224 no goal was bullshit... but the titans game was NOT a forward pass... get over it your kickoff team thought they already won... THERE ARE NO FLAGS ON THE FIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@mark224 you got that right it's easy for those people in Dallas to say get over it but this was are moment to make history in the REAL Hockeytown USA.
When Hull scored his series-clinching goal in triple overtime of game six his foot was in the crease but the puck was not. Subsequent to the series ending goal, the NHL claimed to have sent out a memo clarifying the "skate in the crease" rule that allowed goals in instances where the goalscorer maintained control (not possession) of the puck prior to entering the crease. On this play Hull kicked the puck with his left skate (while still outside of the crease) into a shooting position.
-Wikipedia
fudgedragon9001 1 week ago
Though it was against the rules its not like his skate being in the crease for half a second gave him a huge advantage...
titanfannick09 3 weeks ago
GoodOleGreenEyes 3 weeks ago
that rule was stupid. nhl wanted more goals and they disallowed so many, that goal should have been disallowed with the rules, but at least it got rid of the shitty rule.
kennethjohnali 1 month ago
im not really a fan of either team but im pretty sure tht shulldnt have counted o well its all history GO HAWKS :)
secretagentsir 2 months ago
I'm pretty sure they won the cup... did they not?
Locustgopop 3 months ago
wide right + no goal + music city miracle = buffalo sucks
vadimzdonutube 4 months ago
Maybe if Holzinger could actually check someone this controversy wouldnt exist
xKalamity 4 months ago
that was absolutly bs apparently the reffs were busy with their fingers up somewhere.
raidershockey77 5 months ago
Hey, Buffalo fans! Dallas just filed for Bankruptcy! Maybe you can make a pitch at em to get their SC banner in your arena!
ActoneSUCKA 5 months ago 8
@ActoneSUCKA they could! but itd still be dallas' cup! we won it fair and fucking square. the goal counted. hull had possession of the puck so his foot in the crease didnt matter.
tyler155 3 months ago
Buffalo= Dallas' bitch.
mtorres2866 5 months ago
@mtorres2866 Shut the fuck up.
Richards = Gone
Modano = Gone
HitchCOCK = Gone
Owner = Gone
Dallas = D E A D.
BBBfights 5 months ago 7
@BBBfights Stanley Cups - Dallas = 1
Buffalo = 0
Stay mad.
mikelad777 4 months ago 3
@mikelad777 stfu.
NO GOAL = No cup.
Stay dead.
BBBfights 4 months ago
@BBBfights Strange.
I could have sworn the Stars name's were on it, and not the Sabres?
mikelad777 4 months ago
@mikelad777 Pretty strange indeed.
A bankrupt team playing in the desert having won the stanley cup, but who said Garry Bettman wasnt a sellout ?
BBBfights 4 months ago 2
@BBBfights NO GOAL = Cup. Sabres aren't going anywhere, buddy.
seanpwns04 2 months ago
@BBBfights seriously? i hope you wouldnt repeat this statement now that the ownership issue is resolved and the stars have proven that they are a damn good team. as of right now as i am posting this comment the stars are tied for 2nd in the western conference EVEN THOUGH SEVERAL OF OUR TOP PLAYERS ARE OUT DUE TO INJURY not to mention were on top of the whole league before the injuries. modano and richards were great players. but the team is not suffering now that theyre gone.
tyler155 3 months ago
no goal
airbear2293 6 months ago
@Tomko401 do u know wht else sucks the Dallas stars! Just because they one that cup BIG DEAL! It's just one, the only one u guys ever got since 1999, and at least Buffalo made it to the playoffs last year!
gummybears1245 6 months ago
How can you Sabres fans say that it should have not counted. What was Brett supposed to do? Tell Hasek, " here, i'll tap the puck to your glove. He wanted to score for crying out loud! I guess Hasek's style failed him on that play. Today a lot of goals are scored with players having their skates in the crease. You can't stop the play when the puck is loose in the crease and the goalie has no clue where the puck is.
CONTRAHABS 6 months ago
@CONTRAHABS You clearly have no perspective on this argument. Sabres fans aren't blaming Brett Hull for the goal, this is clearly the ref's fault. His foot was clearly in the crease and thus this goal should have been erased. You say today a lot of goals are scored with players' whose feet are in the crease. OBVIOUSLY, THEY CHANGED THE RULE! Back in '99, with those rules, this shouldn't have counted.
S3ymourButtz 6 months ago
@S3ymourButtz Whatever man. Brett gets pushed pushed by the defenseman and i'd be blaming your defenseman for this goal more than Brett's skate. As Hasek was going to freeze the puck your defenseman got in the way.
CONTRAHABS 6 months ago
@S3ymourButtz You obviously don't know the rules!
If a player is in possession of the puck, which Hull was, he is allowed to be in the crease!
End od story!
TheGoalieGuru 6 months ago
@TheGoalieGuru False. In 1999, the rule was if a player had possession of he puck he was NOT allowed in the crease. The rule changed the following season.
S3ymourButtz 6 months ago 2
@TheGoalieGuru he right it false way to know the rules!!!!!
awesomesauce1313 6 months ago
hasek sucks right? thats why he has 5 vezina trophies and held the record for highest save percentage and i play goalie i have for the past 6 years and some of the saves hes made blow my fucking mind.. hes better then most goalies today and no1 will ever play like him again
2ndHollow 7 months ago
@2ndHollow timmy thomas has his style.
MulletSteeze 5 months ago
Comment removed
lacrosse16sh 7 months ago
Blame the goal on terrible save technique and terrible recovery technique on the goalie. What was he thinking!
TheGoalieGuru 7 months ago
@TheGoalieGuru it's hasek, that;s just his style. and judging by his success you cant really fault it too much
lacrosse16sh 7 months ago
@lacrosse16sh Buffalo was a defense first team and gave up vey few quality scoring chances. It was team success not Hasek success. Want a little proof. When Hasek had no help, the shootout, he had terrible stats!!!
TheGoalieGuru 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGoalieGuru Oh, i wasn't talking about when he was with buffalo specifically. and i honestly don't know much about his/the team's stats when he was with them. I was just saying even with his unorthodox style a lot of people consider him one of the greats
lacrosse16sh 7 months ago
@TheGoalieGuru You do know the shoot-out was introduced into the game in 2005 right? Just checking, go read a book.
S3ymourButtz 6 months ago
@S3ymourButtz Yes! So?
TheGoalieGuru 6 months ago
@TheGoalieGuru Hasek never played for the Sabres after 2001. Therefore your statement is invalid.
S3ymourButtz 6 months ago
@S3ymourButtz I wasn't referring to any particular years!
But if that isn't good enough for ya maybe this will be...
Hasek won the Vezina in 2000/01 with a goals against average of 2.11 and a save percentage of .921. He left to go to Detroit the next season. He was replaced by a young guy who had never been a number one. That new young goalie played 72 games and had a 2.22 GAA and a .915 save percentage in 2001/02. That same season Hasek had a 2.17 GAA and a .915.
Buffalo didn't miss Hasek!
TheGoalieGuru 6 months ago
i have 1 question 4 everyone weather you say it's a goal or no goal why would lindy ruff be so upset at the call doesn't he know the rule book to and why do the versus commentators call it out No goal everytime the situation is brought up ?
Spiller716 7 months ago
did u film this with a calculator?
Goblues1980 8 months ago
Tomko401 , you are obviously oblivious to what new players the sabres have brought to the organization.
iloveryanmiller 8 months ago
@iloveryanmiller leino was a HORRIBLE signing and ehrhoff is good but not worth a ten year deal, pegula got too impatient and tried to do too much in a bad free agent market, i think you're gonna be very disappointed next year
ys0ser10usss 8 months ago
Buffalo still sucks
Tomko401 8 months ago
who cares who ''made the dumb rule''.It was a very clear and strictly enforced rule that year.Many times that year buffalo had goals waved off(as did other teams) for the same exact type of goal.Rules are rules.The league blew it,and lied about it,and tried to make it go away.How do you expect people to just ignore it.People like you are assholes that just go along with anything anyone says.Get a back bone you pussy!
peak199 8 months ago
THE RULING STILL STANDS HIS FOOT WAS IN THE CREASE!!
DML2451 8 months ago
Brett Hull NO goal*
mingDIAL14 9 months ago
No Goal.
FAITHandLOGIC 10 months ago
Fuck all of you. WOW the tip of his skate was in the crease. Who gives a shit? Did it really affect the outcome of the shot? NO. He would have made it if he was an inch back as well. I'm just glad Brett won a cup!
toadman842 10 months ago
@toadman842 Yeah, I agree with you that it didn't affect the shot, but the point is, it was against the rules at the time. It was a dumb rule, but the goal shouldn't have counted.
strat032 10 months ago
@toadman842 The rule in 1999 was EXTREMLY strict on any player not going into the Goaltenders crease at no time for any reason. So yea it did effect the outcome of the game. It should be No Goal.
Oh btw the NHL Changed the rule the next day to what it is now
x30xSabresFan 9 months ago
@toadman842 Ass Hole!
bloodytbonezreaper 8 months ago
@toadman842 The rules were very strict.You cannot be in the crease.During the regular season that year there were many,many goals dis allowed for having a part of your skate in the crease. If rules don't matter,why not just pick the puck up with your hand and throw it in the net? So when you say''fuck all of you'',were laughing at your sorry ass.You are to dumb to understand!
peak199 8 months ago
@peak199 I stand by what I said in my original post. It would have been a pussy call to nullify the goal. Nothing worth bitching about or being bitter about over ten years later.
toadman842 8 months ago
@toadman842 Whos bitter? I only responded because you act like you know what your talking about.Rules are rules unless they apply to you I guess.Talk about a pussy move.You don't have the balls to stand up for what is right,no matter what team you root for.
peak199 7 months ago
clearly like the tip of his blade was i nthe crease but reallly whos the fuckhead who made that stupid rule. it was a great goal by hull the goalie messed up and could have saved it the tip of hulls skate was in no where near the goalie if his skate interfered with the goal then id say yup no faol but the goalie dived for the puck so he obviuosly tried to stop it i say goal and i say the refs made a pretty bs call. i think buffalo deserves a freaking trophy or something they work hard
talon136 10 months ago
Shadiest goal EVER..LETS GO BUFFALO
whoyoudaddy46 10 months ago
Dallas is going to really need some luck this year jblgti146 .... considering they're not in it! ...LETS GO BUFFALO
videobarlow 11 months ago
NO GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets go Sabres, and good luck to Dallas in the playoffs this year!!!!!
jblgti146 11 months ago 2
I don't know if technically it was a goal or not. I am a sabres fan so at the time I was pretty pissed. But now looking at it there should have never been any type of rule that deals with player possession because in hockey possession is lost and gained in split seconds they say hull had possession the while time that's y it was allowed but if it was a delayed penalty As soon as Hasek touched it they would have blown the whistle claiming the stars lost possession. So whatever it happened it's o
johonig420 11 months ago
@johonig420 I dont know if thats true. You see it a lot where the puck hits a guy or his stick but they still dont blow it down on a delayed penalty because they dont constitute that as possession. And while Im in the 100% belief that it was a legit goal because of the actual explanation of the rule beyond the black and white, I agree with you 100% that the NHL was stupid to make a rule like that one. It caused too many problems and too much confusion.Fortunately they got rid of the crease rule.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
i wish the quality was worse, the small black puck was way too easy to see
mikecappa 11 months ago
I hope brett hull dies of AIDS
ericrosiek 11 months ago
bullshit dallas is another town that doesnt need hockey.
sabrescarygood 11 months ago
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
FridayNightDldoFight 11 months ago
A city dosent deserve something more then another city, its the players themselves who do it. the city just writes the check
DjAHdacity 11 months ago
if I would have a dollar for every pixel in this video - i would get one dollar.
TheMusicDude1997 1 year ago
A goal is a goal...sorry sabres fans. Dallas owned you in the 90s. First the cowboys then this. Ouch. I bet all those touchdowns shouldn't have counted either! Whhaaaaaaaaaaa
apc0012 1 year ago
If Brian Holzinger does not skate through the crease and kick the puck out of Hasek's glove, this conversation never happens. I love the Sabres, and I think the NHL, according to the rules at the time, missed the call, but Holzinger did not check Hull, and he kicked the puck away from Hasek. That goal was and still is on Holzinger.
misha1d1 1 year ago
Screw dallas no goal almost ever year the sabres go to the stanly cup they get screwed over like this Bret hull went in the creast
TheCarneyjoey 1 year ago
@TheCarneyjoey Almost every year ??? Uuhh, they've been there twice in 40 years. And Hull was the shooter so he was allowed to step in with possession.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
GOOD GOAL!
basenjib123 1 year ago
its just karma from when dallas got knocked out in 97 becuase the dude was in the crease
jcawesome2 1 year ago
Bullshit and it shouldn't hae counted. His foot can't get anymore in the crease.
lightening740 1 year ago
If that was an average player say Richard Schmelik and in the 1st period that would have not been a goal. However it was Brett Hull (had not won a Stanley Cup yet) and it was in the 3rd OT period of the cup finals. Of course they were going to give it him.
ForgiveTremor 1 year ago
The people who decided are professionals. I agree with them on this call, because it is too close for a biased fan to call him or herself. There are rare occasions where refs blatently miss calls, but this was not one of them. It was just the circumstances that made it so hyped up. No one would have given a crap about this goal if it was midway through the season and not the finals.
PEACEout0813 1 year ago
Thank you some people actually feel for sabres an bills fans cause we have gotten shitty calls over the years but we always stay true to our team
blakerb1 1 year ago
What if they had video replay in 99?
Gills30 1 year ago
@Gills30, They did have replay, goal stood because it was deemed Hull was in continuous possession of the puck. At the time a rebound or shot off the post didnt constitute a change in possession from one player to another. Therefore, Brett Hull's first shot (which was outside the crease) which rebounded and he then kicked and regained control of was still considered the original possession and thus the goal stood.
I do agree tho that the goal shouldn't have counted,it was a very poor exception
Drinky310 1 year ago
fuck this the puck was frozen
troudecul69 1 year ago
This will sting every year until we win a Cup. But I tell you what, when I see Ryan Miller raise Lord Stanley's trophy up high, I'm going to be bawling like a little girl.
Our day will come.
bluevolume 1 year ago
i was at the game, still not over it...
DW33BS 1 year ago
@DW33BS seriously? how much you spend?
Emoidiot187 1 year ago
I wanna go to buffalo wearing a Stars jersey and Cowboys hat
Emoidiot187 1 year ago
@Emoidiot187 i'll count how many times you get stabbed
Shooo716 1 year ago
@Shooo716 prob the same amount of times that buffalo beated dallas at championships in multiple sports
Emoidiot187 1 year ago
and get killed come to the ghetto with that shit on
Spiller716 11 months ago
No posession, no goal!!
Midnightrambler3760 1 year ago
This is a great example of why ESPN is only good at covering the most irrelevant moments in sports.....(the NY Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, Terrell Owens, and drug busts.) and should stick to said irrelevant moments, and most trendy.
ESPN barely had an interest in the NHL at the time- and were quick to pawn it off- but had it not been for ESPN camera-men storming the ice this very good series could've ended the way it should have. Maybe Dallas would've won anyways, nobody in Texas would care.
davey7678 1 year ago
@davey7678 What do you mean...Dallas Stars are huge in dallas..how could noone care
MartyTurco093 1 year ago
@davey7678 Nobody would care ? Come on man. The Stars are pretty popular. One of the successful sunbelt teams. Theyve been among the most profitable in the league since moving to Dallas. Quit ASSuming.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@davey7678 Paid Gretzky ? Ha ha get real. They changed the rule of course but it would have changed regardless because it was a problem all season. They were admitting it was a dumb rule in the 1st place, not admitting they f'd up on that particuliar play. At the time the goal was scored,the player with possession was exempt.As for the media, thats kind of a moot point wether they played a role or not since the goal was in fact legal. They did review it and give an explanation immediately after.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
NNNOOOOOO GGGOOOOAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!
MJferlife 1 year ago
poor buffalo! just imagine if the Bills won the superbowl? i think every true sportsfan might shed a tear.
underlinedbluetext 1 year ago
goal
droglee 1 year ago
brett butt sucks
thomas81147 1 year ago
referee should of blown the whistle he covered the puck
slapshot68 1 year ago
@slapshot68 How was the puck covered ? It wasnt. It bounced off of Hasek right to Hull.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@tjcurrie it actually bounced off hull's skate to his stick. whether intentionally or not it still constitutes possession.
marineaviator2011 1 year ago
@marineaviator2011 Ya but after Hasek bobbled it. It went into Hasek then back out. Thats when Hull kicked it to his stick. But ya its possession either way and a good goal.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@slapshot68 WTH
JustinMovalli20 1 year ago
Yankee- "No goal"
Texan- "No Class"
get over it. yall got beat by a Texas hockey team. Thanks for the statewide ego boost Dallas.
Mul7ese 1 year ago
even if he was in the crease the goalie had NO chance of saving that puck..either way, the cup goes to Dallas
cowboyzsuk81 1 year ago
In football we screwed ourselves but in hockey the refs do that. Even if that was technically a goal this time it's like every year either they make a terrible call when we need it. Or one our guys get hurt (vanek) and all the refs do is give the guy on their team something like a hooking.
siege60 1 year ago
I don't like either of these teams personally, but I could see how buffalo fans would be pissed. He was technically in the crease about an inch or two maybe if that he did have possession though, tough call but any other day of the week this goal wouldn't have even been reviewed and would just be a goal.
templetonbob 1 year ago
Living in Buffalo is like being screwed EVERY day
ramon3964 1 year ago
that wasnt a forward pass in music city
UncoolNegated 1 year ago
Buffalo got screwed
644tad 1 year ago
GOAL!
TheTravisChannel 1 year ago
NO GOAL!!!!!!
south2123 1 year ago
In 1999 you weren't aloud to score with your foot in the crease NO GOAL!
Ragingsinep 1 year ago
Ya. Unless you were the shooter ( Which Hull was ) or if the puck had already entered the crease and your team had possession. Which was the case on this goal. GOAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@tjcurrie he didnt have possession it was a fucking rebound, you dallas retard
jblgti146 1 year ago
He still has possession BECAUSE it's a rebound. Hasek never took possession of the puck. A rebound save does not take away possession from the offending player. Have you ever noticed how players get assists even after rebounds happen? If a player shoots the puck and it bounces off the goalie's pad and another player scores, the first player gets an assist because possession was never changed between the teams. It's the same thing here. Hasek never took possession so it's still Hull's.
Conquerer13 1 year ago
@Conquerer13 HOWEVER at this time in hockey the RULES STATED you CAN NOT be in the crease and score a goal. The ruling was changed the year after so look it up before you make dumb ass assumptions.
thisXwar 1 year ago
@thisXwar Maybe know your shit before you go around calling someone a dumbass. The rules in 1999 said you couldn't be in the crease WITHOUT POSSESSION when a goal was scored. This means a player couldn't stand in the crease when another player scored. Hull's foot was in the crease but he had the puck. Therefore under the rules it was a good goal. Next time learn your shit instead of talking out of your ass, kid.
Conquerer13 1 year ago 2
@jblgti146 Ha ha. You classless, ignorant, uneducated piece of shit. Hull kicked the puck to his stick ( possession ), then planted his skate, then shot. That's possession. I don't know how many players have ever shot the puck in the net without having possession. Never heard of that one before you cluless bastard. Ha ha.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@tjcurrie ignorant, uneducated piece of shit??????: You live in Texas HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
jblgti146 1 year ago
@jblgti146 Try again fool. Alberta. But if I did live in Texas, what difference would that make ? I dont know where youre from and I dont care. It doesnt matter. Im going by your comments. Thats what reflects your knowledge. Or lack of. Stick to the conversation. The facts. Hull had the puck. That makes him the shooter. That means he had possession. Many, including yourself, fail to recognize that.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@tjcurrie Youtube is no place for intellectual excellence, therefore , I will show none. Especially to a Canadian. Im just fucking pissed about this goal, and how the league handled it. It is incorrect for you to say he had possession. You do not know that. But we cant change that now so fuck it. NO GOAL
jblgti146 1 year ago
@jblgti146 Well thats good because youre achieveing your goal of not showing any. How is it incorrect for me to say he had possession ? HE KICKED THE PUCK TO HIS STICK. HE SHOT THE PUCK. THATS POSSESSION. The last 2 touches of that puck were from Hull. Thats like watching Mario Lemieux's famous split the D goal vs Minnesota in 91, or Bobby Orr's Cup winner vs St.Louis and saying they didnt have possession either. You may aswell. You said it yourself. Youre just pissed. Thats all.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
Comment removed
tjcurrie 11 months ago
@Ragingsinep thank you, how have so many people forgot this?...congrats to stars fans and all but dont be ignorant, human error made this goal count
j0rdrum 1 year ago
@j0rdrum Check the facts, please. Do yourself a favour. Everybody who still leaves themsleves in the dark about this should educate themselves. BRETT HULL WAS THE SHOOTER. THAT GIVES HIM POSSESSION. ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE A SKATE IN THE CREASE. Not to mention the puck already entered the crease area, making it legal. Go check every other goal that was disallowed. Theyre all where one guy was the shooter, and another player was in the crease. Completely different.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@tjcurrie are you saying it was a no goal?
MJferlife 1 year ago
@MJferlife No Im saying it was a goal. 100% legal.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
@tjcurrie
Wow- You do realize the NHL had to pay Wayne Gretzky a lot of money to advocate for his buddy Brett Hull, and change the rules a month later to make it look like it was a goal, right? At the time; a skate in the crease was enough to dis-allow a goal. AGAIN- the media ended this series by storming the ice.
davey7678 1 year ago
so if thats the case you could interfere with the goalie as long as u are the shooter ??????and have posession ????
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 Actually interfering with the goalie would be different. That would be a whole nother story. The foot in the crease rule had it's own stipulations and one of those stipulations was that if you had possession you could step in and also that the crease was in play once the puck entered. The puck entered already as Lehtinen fired it into Hasek. All Hull did was step in, step out, kick the puck to his stick (possession), step back in, and shoot. Totally legal.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
in your mind it was legal but the rule book was different every bullshit call thats made in any sport has a cover up to it your saying it was legal but commentators on versus thinks of your opinion different you want the interview link ??????
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 You can send me any link you want to. And I will watch it. But Ive watched plenty of explanations on the goal and theyre all saying it's legal. Besides, anybody can have their opinions but fact is fact and going by the rules at that time ( fact ) it was a legal goal. Hull had possession of the puck. Bottom line. In the rule book that was legal. It's inarguable. People just dont want to look any further than "his foot was in the crease", without realizing it wasnt as black and white
tjcurrie 11 months ago
maybe the rule book didnt say anything about posession?????cause if it did lindy ruff wouldnt of been pissed and the commentators on versus wouldnt be saying that it was a bad call they know the rule just as good as NHL offcials we just got cheated thats no hard feelinz
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 Ya it was actually in the rule book. They read it on air. Its been explained. Ruff and those commentators, and I guess other fans are just looking at it as plain black and white as a I said. Thinking that his foot was in the crease, therefore it's not goal. It was a stupid rule that caused problems on every play where it was involved. This goal included. Except this goal was different because it was the shooter in the crease and the puck already entered making the crease in play.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
no the NHL Brainwashed you into thinking that because it was a bad call that they knew they had to make up something...what about the goal that went threw the side of the net on the sabres it clearly was on tv and air as you say and they still didnt call it back ???explain that ?
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 No actually that was the rule. Not allowed in the crease without possession. Thats why when you would see one player shoot the puck into the net, with another player standing in the crease, they would call it back. Hull's goal was completely different. He WAS the shooter. He HAD possession. Totally different. The LeClair goal was a totally different play. It was brutal but it has nothing to do with Hull's goal.Neither does when Nelson Emerson threw the puck into the net with the Jets
tjcurrie 11 months ago
ok kid stay being brainwashed while ex nhl players say it was no goal and people like you who believe in the posession bullshit and btw it were plenty of goals that year identical to hulls that year that were called back not similiar they were identical
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 Ha ha okay kid. I will kid. Its not brainwashed at all. Its knowing the actual rule and being able to look beyond the 1st layer of it all. Go look around you'll find I am right. Even Gretzky says it was a goal if you wanna talk ex players. You can throw that out there that there was plenty of identical goals called back but you're just throwing that out there. You actually have no idea. But seriously go look around. You will see it explained the exact way Im telling you. Inarguable.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
i already seen it just like every other bad call the nhl makes up shit to cover it up and how you gonna say im talking about ex nhl players and you just said wayne gretzky said it was a goal hes a ex nhl player????
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 You said "ex NHL players say it was no goal." Gretzky himself said it was a legit goal. He's an ex player. You can keep thinking it's all a cover up if you want. Obviously nothing is gonna change your mind. But it was actually explained in the official NHL rulebook. Not a cover up, and not made up AFTER the goal. That's a fact. I dont even need to say anything else.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
its ok cause vanek is gonna get us a cup anyway fuck you and your dallas stars
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 Classy man. Classy. I like the Sabres and all but some teams just werent meant to win. And if you ever do win it, it wont be on Tomas Vanek's shoulders. GOOOAAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!
tjcurrie 11 months ago
thomas vanek is the best scum fuck outta here
Spiller716 11 months ago
@Spiller716 Ha ha ! The best hey ? Sure buddy. Thats the icing on the cake here. Oh and stay classy too.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
@tjcurrie u mad because youre team aint in the playoffs? pussy...
joshsauter 11 months ago
@joshsauter U mad cause your team hasn't won shit in 40 years. Some franchises just weren't meant to win anything. Only actual pussies mouth off like that on the net. They cant do it in real life so they resort to this. You're a true internet tough guy.
tjcurrie 11 months ago
@tjcurrie fuc koff pussy sabres rule and stars suck balls for cheating
SMarx88 10 months ago
@SMarx88 Cry some more. Sabres= No Cups and only 2 trips to the finals in 40 years. 'Nuff said.
tjcurrie 10 months ago
whats sad is that the Buffalo Sabres, a Buffalo NHL team, got their hearts torn apart again by another Dallas based team, this time the Starts in this game, if you don't think the Cowboys slaughtered the Bills enough, damn, it's like having salt put in your open wound
nobodysperfect06 1 year ago
Buffalo Football team sucked also Dallas Cowboys beat them in the Super Bowl when it comes to Football we have more trophyies than any New York team.
youngstud1982 1 year ago
@youngstud1982 too bad football is gay.
fattommy16 1 year ago
Its a goal. This play is completely different than the goals that were called back all year where one guy has a toe in the crease and another shoots the puck. The puck already went into the crease on this play. Making the crease in play. But the biggest factor is that Hull had possession. Simple as that. He kciked the puck to his stick. He was the shooter. He plants his foot after kicking it then shoots it. Its inarguable. The injustice would have been if it was called back.
tjcurrie 1 year ago
I know. It sucks for buffalo. But you're just making excuses. Really. Its not like it was a game 7 right?
Its not like hull kicked hasek in the face?! I feel bad for buffalo. Especially because dallas has taken like 4 championships from their fingers. Thats got to be frustrating.
But the rule is there to keep people from being in the crease and blocking the goalies view... right??
you know damn well hashek was always laying on his back.... it cost buffalo the championship.
underlinedbluetext 2 years ago
quit ur crying!
the goal was good, listen to the Supervisor of Refs : 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.
and enough with the "forward pass" get ur biased heads out ur asses and look at a number of replays that show it was a lateral!
italstallion06 2 years ago
This was voted the fifth worst call in sports history.
Mikeyski4 2 years ago
NO GOAL
jorjj11 2 years ago 4
@jorjj11 Rule changes it March... Read the memo... Oh and it was a decade ago... Get over it... It counted...
fodnick96 1 year ago
this is what i have a hard time with all of u that say its not good. and for those of u who say with our treplay system not it would have been called back. but the NHL and every offical who reviewed that goal then and until now still say good goal. every "EXPERT" in the rules and reviewing say its a good goal. The only people who cry about it and say its no good are the fans of buffalo and the media from bufallo. If everyone says its good but u then geuss what its most likely good.
kingpincmk 2 years ago
@kingpincmk your tired of sabres fans treating dallas fans like shit??? come on, buffalo fans have to sit through absolute shit year in and year out whether its the bills or the sabres. sabres fan can complain all they want because buffalo is the first city that deserve a championchip. dallas has so many championchips in every sport so cut buffalo fans a break.
iniloap18 2 years ago
THANK YOU!!!!
jamesDAman182 2 years ago
so let me get this straight Your city deserves a championship more then anyone due to the fact yall have either sucked more then anyone or the fact yall have been to the big game but not good enough to win it more then anyone.
yeah if u seriously think that then every team in every league in every sport should be awarded the championship every year. Sorry buffalo ur luck sucks against any dallas team.
kingpincmk 2 years ago
No shit we have bad luck. The point is it's easy for people to be Dallas fans. You win a lot. You have a beautiful city with a great economy. As sports fans, you don't know what it's like to really suffer. Buffalonians have been through so much, "No Goal" "Wide Right", "Music City Forward Pass". Of course nobody is entitled to a championship. But for the amount of times Buffalo has had its heart ripped out because of sports, you have to agree it would be great to see Buffalo win a championship
mark224 2 years ago 36
yeah i gotta agree its gotta suck to come so close to lose it. right now cant say much for dallas teams yeah cowboys sorta getting back on track but stars doing terrible mavs are ok and well rangers..............well we are nto going into that right now.
kingpincmk 2 years ago
@mark224 A totally legal goal, a kicker failing to score from a distance that was two yards short of his record, and losing 'cos of a miracle play. Luck has nothing to do with any of it. I call it not performing aka sucking.
Rehtomflow 1 year ago
@mark224 i have to agree..the bills alone are one of the biggest choking franchises of all time, NY state other than the yankees is the worst, we have the mets, ny rangers, knicks, jets, bills
jjjhs08 1 year ago
@mark224
Are you kidding me?
Dallas lost to New Jersey in 2000
The Mavs lost to the Heat in the NBA Finals in 2006
The Mavs were upset by Golden State in 2007
The Texas Rangers have never even won a single playoff series in their entire history.
The Cowboys until recently hadn't won a playoff game in 13 years.
Dallas is a cursed sports town. Dallas fans, hence, have very strong loyalty and perseverance.
RedFoxAce 1 year ago
@mark224
I live about 1.5 hours away from Buffalo though. Even though I'm a Dallas fan, I want to see either the Bills or Sabres captures a championship. Upstate NY fans have heart.
RedFoxAce 1 year ago
@mark224 no goal was bullshit... but the titans game was NOT a forward pass... get over it your kickoff team thought they already won... THERE ARE NO FLAGS ON THE FIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
batmandotcom 1 year ago
@mark224
ure right. i would live to see BUFF win a championship... so long as its not against a Dallas team
IIIIIIBradfordIIIIII 1 year ago
@mark224 you got that right it's easy for those people in Dallas to say get over it but this was are moment to make history in the REAL Hockeytown USA.
Sabreboy1999 1 year ago
<