would you guys quit bitchin? it happened nearly 12 years ago and you're still complaining saying NO GOAL NO GOAL..like they're gonna go back and get everyone together and play one more OT period 12 years later. what happened happened and that's it. get over it
@Bazil4444 this comment saddens me. "you have no idea what this did to our town". it's a freakin game. im a flyers fan. i was mad as hell when chicago won. i get mad at missed calls by refs..but it didn't do anything to our town..as you say. wanna talk about something affecting a town? how about how katrina affected New orleans? or the tornado that destroyed joplin township last year. don't talk about how a missed call effected your whole town. that's bullshit. grow up
It really comes down to whether or not that counts as possession for Hasek. Regardless I hate both teams and this is the worst final that could happen in my opinion, but at least Dallas won
A TRUE hockey fan wouldn't bitch and cry about a goal. Sabres were not up to it. If they deserved the win then it wouldn't have come down to one goal. Cry all you want the goal stands happened years ago get over it. Thank God some people know the rules of hockey even back then, and I agree stupid rule.
ok i wasnt watching hockey back then so im not sure the rules then exactly, have they changed? because i dont see whats wrong with this. im not a fan of either team so im not biased, but whats in question? that he kicked it to himself? that hes in the crease?
@928rsmith Back in 1999 no Offensive play could go in the Goaltenders crease at ANY time. His foot went into the crease and should have been called No Goal by the reff. And if people dont think thats so they were doing that in prevous games. They changed the rule to what it is today because people were complaining (almost every team and fans). and they changed it, THE NEXT DAY
SIDE NOTE The sabres also made every goal review from the "Goal" that went threw the side of the net.
.....Of course Bettman isn't going to change his "ruling". but that was the part that got me pissed more than any other aspect. Bettman is not allowed to change the rules on the fly to suit his whim.
Being a Caps fan, I had no dog in this fight. As soon as this goal was scored, I looked at the particular rule IN THE RULEBOOK. It said nothing about possession. All it addressed was having your foot in the crease before the puck. Bettman made that stupid quote about possession within minutes of the goal, but there was NO wording in the rulebook to back it up! If you go offsides is it waved off because you have possession?
@ypodeswa NOW you can, but not as the rules existed that year. I swear, I read the rules straight from the book, and it didn't address this problem at all. It was a dumb rule, but a rule none the less.
well before the rule change and with it, its still a goal. brett hull isnt gonna stop jamming in rebounds because of a wack rule, and he was just quicker to the puck. thats sports. thats hockey. stop crying buffalo. this wasnt your cup!
If you LOOKED AT THE FREAKING RULES BEFORE THIS GOAL
It clearly stated you are not aloud to have your foot, hand, WHATEVER YOU HAVE in the crease except for you stick. AT NO TIME may any offencive player be in the crease. Shots were NO GOALS alot during the season because of it. The NHL made the rule we have now the next day (go look at when it was made) because every other team and fans (PLUS the sabres)were complaining and knew it wasnt a goal.The only reason u think it is cause u like Dallas
Let's say that the possession rule applies.. Brett never had possession until he kicked it to his stick. Deflecting a puck is not possessing a puck. On a delayed penalty, the offending team must possess the puck in order to stop play. Having a puck deflect off your stick will never stop that play. Brett Hull's foot was in the crease after his deflection and before his possession, therefore no goal.
Video comments: Okay, while a rebound off the goalie doesn't constitute a change of possession, it also doesn't count as continued possession for the shooter. That's just stupid.
Uploader comments: While I respect your opinion on this goal - I don't know exactly what the rules were at this point in hockey - using what Bettman says about hockey to support your argument is like using a bloody pipe with your fingerprints on it to prove you didn't kill a guy. He's the wrong TOOL for the job.
@Vadered99 I agree, and my comment supports your view. High and mighty Bettman sat up there and stated a rule that wasn't in the book. Everyone commenting, it was only a rule for that 1 year. I obtained the book the day after the game (They didn't have the new ones in there that quickly-LOL) and to my recollection it stated that a player could not enter the crease until the puck had entered, similar to the situation at the blue line with offsides. There was nothing talking about possession.
If the refs called it like they did the entire year this was no goal, this is after they made the rule change, the rule at the time said that AT NO TIME MAY ANY ATTACKING PLAYER BE IN THE DEFFENDING CREASE. Its still no goal.
What's great about this whole thing is that nobody blames their goalie for sucking. He sucked, he gave up a rebound right in front of the net to a wide open Stars player, get over it.
@danynumero6 Hasek contrary to some people's opinion is indeed human...the rules are the rules,the guy who posted this was not the one talking,the officials were...accept it...
@danynumero6 Hasek contrary to some people's opinion is indeed human...the rules are the rules,the guy who posted this was not the one talking,the officials were...accept it...By the way,I am a Stars fan and I will admit that Hasek is indeed one of the best goalies to play the game...however...as much as this pains me to say,I think Patrick Roy was far and away the best goalie.
@ianhockey10 You mean the best goaltender? The one who is getting his number retired for the sabres? Yup cause he sucked. Do you even play goal? THEN SHUT UP
@delinquent220 easy for you too say your a bruins fan man you dont get it so id shut up. its clearly a goal they should have won you always see like every single team win in every sport except for buffalo wanna know why cause we get fucked over with the rules like that crap it was a goal his foot was in the crease and then he takes it out and scores id say if his foots out of the crease and he scored which he did then its a goal
@JaKCO9v9 Uh....yeah...you can't even spell Sabres correctly. The Canes aren't out of the playoffs yet, and don't expect them to go quietly. When the Slugs when a cup, their fans can talk crap to us Caniacs. GO CANES!
It really shouldn't have been a goal. the memo wasn't passed until AFTER the game so it should've been called off. BUT of course, while no one else sees this, at 0:42 what the hell was the defenseman doing there? He should've pushed Hull away from the net then Hull wouldn't have even gotten the shot off. I think the defenseman gets a little bit of the blame there.
Anyone that watched the NHL during that season, knows this rule was enforced practically every night.
"Memo" or not, from your unnamed source, lots of goals were disallowed for this exact reason. NHL goofed big time. There's no question about that. Yes, it was a stupid rule, but a rule at the time, nonetheless. I didn't see the ref's delay the cup presentation to properly review the goal like every other time. Given the circumstances were unique.But the NHL handled this as poor as one could.
no goal. since his foot WAS IN THE CREASE when he kicked it, it can't be. sabres fans such as me don't whine, we know the truth. the rule was that you CAN'T KICK THE PUCK IN THE CREASE!!!!! why can't you get that in ur frickin heads.
This is the guy the NHL pays to make sure everything checks out on goals and he is still doing it today, he explained it perfectly but you ppl want to try and bend the rule. If you cant understand the possesion rule think out it like Basketball if a ball it tipped or blocked by the defense but cant come up with the ball its still the other teams possesion. same here the puck entered first it was still hulls to play and he did. End of story stop trying to bend the rule so u can bitch ppl.
Even if lets say it was a no gaol which according to the rules and my belief it was a GOOD GOAL, WTF does his foot have to do with anything. it didnt even touch the goalie or cuz him to not make the save. Its one thing if we debated on it interfering with him but it had nothing to do with the goal itself of shooting or saving.
@Spiller716 No it wasnt, the rule if u watch what he says and look it up, "a player can enter the crease as long as they have possesion of the puck" if the goalie had it or another player got it and he entered and scored then yes it would be disallowed, he never lost possesion the puck entered the crease bounced of the goalies he grabed the puck pulled it out and score. foot or not it was legal. the rule was was never you can do it period. Whats so hard about what the NHL rule book says
dude im not gonna argue with ur ass even commentators on nbc and versus say it was a goal call that costed the sabres a cup you just a stars fan but if we did that to the stars you would be complaining to so dont talk bs
@Spiller716 im not talking bs sabre fans and dallas haters are the only ones doing that, not my fault you guys dont know what the rules are or yall just like bending what the rules mean to you. and of course some of the commentators are going to say shit its there job to get your attention. The NHL, Every official and even Canada's great Wayne Gretzky say its a good legal goal. only ones bitching are you guys
and so is the NHL OFFCIALS are gonna try to cover a call that was no goal and tell me this...why goals identical to brett hulls goal called back that year in the season ??? just answer that pls
@Spiller716 No matter what i say or how i put it your not going to b e satisfied but fuck it, he even says it in the video that some officials as in refs and replay will define the rule of possession in a different way, if there are goals that they took back like his then they were robbed. Dallas never lost possession which is the key part everyone is overlooking about the rule. If any other buffalo player played it it would have been no goal but they didn't play it.
to be honest idc i was 7 years old when it happen so i have no real arugument but everybody has their opinion i feel if ex players for nhl say it was no goal why would they say that then nhl offcials say it is goal because clearly my father told me goals just like that 1 was called back that year and once hasek makes a save brett hull has no more possenion rite???
@Spiller716 i understand when you say that goals like that in the past and that year were missed, it happens the refs and officals watching the replay screw up because of what the guy in the video says people have there own perception of what "change of possession" is. Dallas NEVER lost possession so brett playing the puck After it entered the crease made his foot in it legal to play and shoot. THERE WAS NO RULE SAYING THE FOOT CANNOT BE INSIDE THE CREASE AT ALL.
@Thekingcmk If you were alive at that time, and new the rules, it clearly stated "No offensive play may be in the Goaltending crease at any time". They changed that rule the next day.
@x30xSabresFan wow learn ur hockey first the rule BEFORE it was changed never in any way said you could NOT EVER be in the crease, the rule was as long as the attacking team had control of the puck while being shot into the crease and the Goalie never takes control of the puck (which he never did) it is still the attacking teams puck to play is as long as he does not interfere with the goalie, which he didnt, end of day the NHL and everyone else besides buffalo say its a goal.
@x30xSabresFan OMG still wrong , look i dont mind listening to people debate the fact of rule of possession and some people have made good cases on that but let me repeat NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF HOCKEY has there been a rule that says in no way can a player ever at any time go into the crease, the rule has always been about POSSESSION. this video clearly says that the rule books BEFORE that fucking game say that when hockey first was officiated even said that its all about fucking POSSESSION.
I love how every NHL member, every team and every fan outside of buffalo and dallas haters say its a goal. the rule clearly says its a goal you haters just want to try and bend the rule your way. Yall say its a cover up what now your going to tell me the goverment was the ones who flew the planes into the WTC. Get a life people and get over your lose.
@FridayNightDldoFight ha, just trying to stir the pot. i got on here just to see the vid that i hadnt seen in several years and was shocked at how many bitter fans there were.
you assholes got lucky in 06 when our entire defense went out on us and we end up losing in 7 games to you so if we had 3 back we win and go to the cup luck bitches
What a bunch of bullshit....look up the original rule and you will nothing about possession...but only that a players skate cannot be in the crease before the puck enters the crease. Hull's skate was clearly in the crease before he puck therefore.....NO GOAL!!!!...this was a cover up for a blown call. Yeah Dallas has the banner hanging...but that will always be a tainted banner!
according to the rules in 1999 a pass using the skate is not considered control, even if it was on purpose. therefore it should of been no goal because he had his skate in the crease before he shot the puck, which is when he was considered having control. im sick of these people saying buffalo is whining for no reason when all they have to do is look at the rules and see for themselves it was no goal
The infamous memo allowed goals where a player's skate was in the crease only if he MAINTAINED CONTROL before the skate entered the crease. In 1999, according to the rule book, kicking the puck did not constitute control. Hull didn't control the puck until he shot the puck and his skate was already in the crease before he shot. I argued for years it was a good goal before finally understanding the rules and the memo. And I'm a Sabre fan! Now I can confidently say NO GOAL!
The rule never said anything about possesion and control to begin with. All it said was your foot can't be in the crease if the puck isn't. This is just a cover up explanation by this asshole.
"Near the end of the season the NHL 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."
@lightening740 lol wow the rule clearly said that its all about possession, YOUR FOOT CANNOT ENTER THE CREASE "BEFORE" THE PUCK OR WHILE THE GOALIE HAVE POSSESSION. puck entered it bounced out hull played it with his foot while still having possession shot the puck and scored. THE ONLY this you can debate it the actual rule of possession. Thats what makes me laugh at u ppl, ur debating the wrong shit.
@Thekingcmk Your looking at TODAYS rule book. If you were there, at that time, And read the book, the rules clearly stated that AT NO TIME MAY ANY OFFENSIVE PLAYER BE IN THE GOAL CREASE
Sinse the entire league was up in arms about it, the NHL changed the rule the next day
@Thekingcmk wow once again ur wrong NEVER has the rule been a player NEVER AT ANY TIME be in the crease. its all about possession. I have seen copys of rule books Before that fucking year never have i seen the rule you speak of. The only legit scenario that you or anyone can argue is did he have possession when he rebounded the puck that's it but instead of arguing that you ppl make up some bogus lie about what the rule said.
As a Buffalo sports fan I admit it was a goal. I disagree with your thought, though, that every team has been screwed over as bad. NO CITY IN AMERICA has been raped by bad luck in sports as bad as Buffalo. So many questionable calls and missed chances - Brett Hull goal, shot through the net vs the Flyers, "no goal" vs the Rangers in 07, music city miracle in 99 (don't get me started on that), Scott Norwood missed FG, among many many others. whatever city youre from, please give Buffalo a break.
@XBalmoX WOW your stupid poured all over the place didnt it? This explanation is precisely in line with the rule book, and further more if Gretzky says it's goal, I'll go with his opinion over some arm chair forward wannabe
Also the Stars were up 3-2 in the series, and they were just too deep in talent and Belfour was a man on a mission, put that in place with Hitchcock out coaching Ruff, it just wasnt the Sabres time
If the puck bounced through his skates at 44 seconds in the video and he got clobbered 1.99 seconds later, would we consider it a legal hit because it was within two seconds of possession (with the time after the shot counting), or late because it was more than two seconds after possession (with that time not counting)?
Stars fans would say penalty, Sabres fans would say no penalty...and then the ref could give a three minute penalty for banging his wife and NHL would defend it afterwards 100%.
I was at a game once before this happened where play was stopped for a good 5+ minutes while video review tried to determine which entered the crease first: the puck or the toe of a players skate. When I watched the replay at home later on, I could not tell how they determined which entered the crease first. It was ruled no goal and I still think they just flipped a coin on that one rather than using discretion: the player with a toe in the crease did NOT interfere with the goalie.
@mmeweb3411 Buffalo is just dumb and can't read the rulebook... I wish I could find a copy of the rulebook but it has been a decade at this point... lol
sickening. the nhl didn't have the courage to call that goal back, despite the fact that goals like that had been called back all year long. pathetic.
BUFFALO HAD LIKE 3 OR 4 CHANCES TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP IN THE 1990'S AND THEY LOST ALL OF THEM GIVE IT UP MAN ..... IM NOT SAYING THOUGH BUFFALO IS THE CITY THAT DESERVES TO FINALLY WIN SOMETHING
So if a player shoots the puck on goal, and the rebound goes into the corner off the goalie, then the guy who shot the puck still has possession even though he's no in contact with the puck or within 10 feet of it? Wow what a great rule. After 16OT periods everyone had enough and the Stanley cup was on the ice before anyone could call the goal back. It was like 3AM and no one wanted to do the right thing. Somehow Dallas people don't care because they've never been in that position.
So, I'm sitting here watching this show "Relive the Magic" on the NHL network and Mike Modano and Craig Ludwig are chatting about how funny it was that the refs never made any calls, like Modano's blatant hook at center ice and Belfour's body slam and punch on Varada that was just ignored, laughing like a couple of cock suckers that KNOW that they got lucky in that game. The 90's sucked for Hockey, and the Stars are a prime example, trap's,obstruction,horrid officials and phantom goals.NO GOAL!
All you Buffalo fans are just sore losers. Your pissed because buffalo never beats Dallas...'92 and '93 Super Bowl, thats right DALLAS won. '99 Stanley Cup DALLAS won. Why don't you chirp those responsible for your loses....the Bills and Sabres. Cause when a team sucks in the finals its not their oppenents fault its theirs. Deal with it. Go Stars and Cowboys!
Ponder this. What if Hull had played the puck with his skate directly (or off Hasek)INTO THE NET? Is the goal legal? Anyone who says it's "no goal" if he kicked it into the net AND "no goal" the way it was actually scored is bending the rules to his/her wishes. Either he had possession or didn't. If the puck had gone into the net and not to his skate it should have been disallowed. The way it actually happened was legal. Period. On to 2010-2011. Go Bruins!
Amazing! 248 comments (now 249) about a goal (yes it won a Cup) happening 11 YEARS AGO! Has anyone (haven't read through all 248 comments) actually READ THE RULE in effect at the time? Might be hard to find, but I'd do that before making any judgments. Having said that, it looked to me as if Hull played the puck off his skate (possession at that point) to his stick, his skate entered the crease and then he put the puck by Hasek. Rule or not, would have been a travesty had it NOT counted!
Never was aware there had been an explanation until just now. Glad I saw it, gives me a much different feeling about it (not that I'm a fan of either team).
Never was aware there had been an explanation until just now. Glad I saw it, gives me a much different feeling about it (not that I'm a fan of either team).
Lewis lied when he said there was an official review. An official review would have had the referees at the scorer's table on the phone. That never happened. Unforgiving since it was the most important goal scored in the playoff that year.
Thats No goal!!! That dudes only saying what he is saying so that the nhl doesnt get in shit. He doesn teven know what he is talking about BULL SHIT!!! im a buffalo fan for time and When I say this i got so angry that is a fucking shit excuse shut up craker bitch ass cunt!!!!
@robscomac calm down -.- it was a goal and im a buffalo fan haseks own teamate bumped into him anyways and tis was going on all around the league not just here.
this is not an explanation. this was in no way a legal goal. the NHL rigged the stanley cup in 1999. they did it again in 2004. and again in 2009. its happening more and more. the NHL is destroying the sport of hockey.
And the reason that I thought the officials let the call stand, was that the refs wanted last call and the bars in Buffalo were closing at 2 AM. That was about thirty minutes after Brett Hull scored.
it was a stupid rule all season long anyway. Too many legit goals were called back that season. It was a good goal and you know it. Keep telling yourself that shouldn't have counted if you want...that'll work.
And, afterwards the Buffalo Sabres and the city of Buffalo sued the NHL for allowing such a goal like that. Just kidding! The Stars won the Stanley Cup fair and square.
Been quoted by the actually referee, that once the goal was scored, there were to many people, such as the team, ceremony staff, and reporters, that they had no chance to actually review the play, without causing some sort of uproar. Oh well, Sabres will win it one day, and the Stars will continue to have a shitty fan base in a state that doesn't deserve hockey.
During the regular season if you had possession of the puck you could be in the crease according to what I have been able to find on the internet. I believe the only argument can be whether or not he had possession or not since he shot it and then had to kick it. However, when you watch the video I believe that most poeple would say that he did have possession.
Listen to the guy explaining the rules beside Ron MacLean. He clearly goes step by step through the goal to explain how its a legal goal. Hull had possession. I don't know why Buffalo fans are such sore losers. Yes, I know, there's a rivalry between Buffalo and Dallas, but i think thats more because of football (the Cowboys beating buffalo for the Super bowl way back when). Seriously, I'm not taking sides (although in '99 i was somewhat a Dallas fan), but it's only sports. Don't worry about it.
The NHL could not show one single piece of tape that showed that this was how the rule was interpreted during the season, however, there were at least 20 goals taken away on plays exactly like it. Rule book my ass, they were trying to cover their ass because they knew they fucked up ... simple as that. If you don't want to hear fans "whine" about it ... DON'T LISTEN because this was THE biggest fuck-up in the history of the NHL. This goal should not have counted ... end of story.
Sorry buffalo it's a goal. His foot was right on the outer edge of the crease. It wouldn't have made a difference if his foot was 3 in. back, Hasek was down and beat. Dallas had the better team. Even if it was ruled no goal on the ice Dallas prob would have won it in OT anyway. Hull had POSSESSION which makes the foot in the crease rule null and void. Our name is on the cup, get over it!
@XoSarahLoveoX again not the rule read the video comment, hell even watch the video and they tell you why its considered a goal. This was within the hour after the game ended.
Ya know what, brett hull crossed the goal crease line and then scored which didn't count back then and the sabres should have one the stanley cup!!!!!!
this is why Buffalo never wins, because they get screwed...its obviously no goal because they felt bad and the following year they changed the rule...they didnt just do that for no reason
@MrGunnyboddy oooo look it the thought boy talking shit over the internet....you know what they say, "arguing over the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win, your still retarded"
@Dimmer1313 they changed the rule because it was a bad rule for EVERY team. They had plans to change it even before the playoffs began but couldnt change it prior to the playoffs since thats how they played all season. But again the rule was NOT if your foot is in the crease its not a goal, since he had possession his foot can be in there when he shoots. If someone else had shot the puck, it should not have counted.
Regardless of what the rulebook said, this exact type of goal was consistently waved off throughout the season. Not once did I ever hear them use the "possession" excuse before this, obviously a case of the NHL blowing it and covering their asses.
@courts7878 then the waved off goals were missed-called. I saw goals go both ways all year on that exact type of play. Some counted, others didn't. One of the major reasons it was eliminated not just this call.
Possession and control are two diff things, and just because someone "touches" the puck, it implies possession change, but not necessarily qualifies it as a gaining of control. I remember watching this goal and being so ticked, but now when I watch it, it makes sense.
@123MrBee yes i agree, if it ricocheted off his skate that would be one thing. But since he kicked it right to his tape its safe to say he had control. If only other people would understand this.
@landynberry24 First of all, your argument is pretty vague because Connolly didn't even play in the NHL at that time. Anyway, just because the puck almost hits Holzinger's skate, doesn't mean Hull loses possession. Besides, he becomes in possession of the puck when he kicks it to himself. Simple.
@KmanO9 dont let this propaganda nhl head office bullshit fool you, legally it was no goal at the time, regardless what he says the man was trying to cover it up
@bufalosabresrock4444 read the description. If you had possession of the puck, you could be in the crease. Goals throughout the season exactly like this were both counted and reversed depending on the referee. The ones that were reversed like this during then were the bad calls. Not this one. Completely legit goal based on the rulebooks exact language.
@KmanO9 if thats the case, then every goal scored by a goalie, that only touched it by making a save, and the opposing team puts it in their own net, should all be reversed. taking goals away from goalies such as hextall and osgood. that rule is bullshit and doesnt even apply to this. hasek had control of the puck when he tried to push it out of the crease with his paddle, thats a change of possession and the goal should be disallowed
@bufalosabresrock4444 totally correct, this would have been no goal right away in reg season, but they didnt wanna say "hey hold on you didnt win yet" so they have this chump "clear it up" lol No goal
@bufalosabresrock4444 no your foot can be in the crease if you have possesion (which Brett Hull did). look at 1:01 in the video "perfectly legal goal" is what he says. And how inmature are you bitching at something thats 11 years old?
the reason it counted was they had already begun to leave the bench, and it was in triple ot. they were not going to call it back even though it was a bullshit call. the funny thing is don cherry called brett hull out on it on Hockey night in canada
It wasn't a bullshit call. They explained it. He had possession as shown on the video so no infraction. I should point out that I like neither the Sabres or Stars so I have no bias. And Don Cherry was completely ass-wrong for calling out Hull as is everybody else who thinks it wasn't a goal. It was blatantly a goal as shown from every angle anyone has ever seen in regular motion or slow. No question. Also why call out Hull? He had shit to do with it. The refs/league officials had the last say
From day one, I thought this was a good goal . . he kicked the puck to his stick, meaning he had possesion, BEFORE his foot entered the crease. If I'm not mistaken, you could have a foot in the crease (heck, even skate right through the crease) if you entered the crease with possesion of the puck. Hull did.
I'm a Dallas Stars ans Dallas Cowboys fan living in Buffalo for 6yrs now.Any time during the NHL season when I wear a Stars sweater(HULL or MODANO) somebody says "No Goal". And I point out the "Possession" of the puck Hull had making it HIS to play. I've learned that fans here accept ANY rule if it Benefits the Bills or Sabres.otherwise its cheating or unfair.NOTHING prevented Hasek from STOPPING that goal.and furthermore WHERE WERE HIS D-LINEMAN? GOAL STANDS.STARS WIN.
The soul reason i hate the stars
cowdoe 2 days ago
Still complaining 12 years later. Losers. Maybe if you didn't complain you would have won another year.
robat228 1 week ago
@robat228 fuck u dallas bitch
sentaixanimeost 3 days ago
would you guys quit bitchin? it happened nearly 12 years ago and you're still complaining saying NO GOAL NO GOAL..like they're gonna go back and get everyone together and play one more OT period 12 years later. what happened happened and that's it. get over it
cowboyzsuk81 1 month ago
@cowboyzsuk81 fuck you. FUCK YOU. you have no idea what this did to our town.
Bazil4444 1 month ago
@Bazil4444 this comment saddens me. "you have no idea what this did to our town". it's a freakin game. im a flyers fan. i was mad as hell when chicago won. i get mad at missed calls by refs..but it didn't do anything to our town..as you say. wanna talk about something affecting a town? how about how katrina affected New orleans? or the tornado that destroyed joplin township last year. don't talk about how a missed call effected your whole town. that's bullshit. grow up
cowboyzsuk81 1 month ago
LOL, a NHL team in Dallas? that is a joke. probably one of the worst fan bases. It dosent even snow there...
eatpanda118 1 month ago
@eatpanda118 Yeah because the last time I checked, snow is a teams secret weapon t being good.
dgkallday4u 4 days ago
It really comes down to whether or not that counts as possession for Hasek. Regardless I hate both teams and this is the worst final that could happen in my opinion, but at least Dallas won
893160007 1 month ago
buffalo is shitty anyway
13sexypenis 1 month ago
Even if it was ruled no goal dallas would still have won. We had as juggernaut offense that season
juggHERnutt 2 months ago
Dallas sucks, so do the refs!! Thats NO GOAL!!! LETS GO BUFFALO!!!!!
Sabretooth2008goNoah 2 months ago
only against buffalo but us true fans never stop believing......Lets go Buffalo!!!!
MrDanglesnipes18 2 months ago
A TRUE hockey fan wouldn't bitch and cry about a goal. Sabres were not up to it. If they deserved the win then it wouldn't have come down to one goal. Cry all you want the goal stands happened years ago get over it. Thank God some people know the rules of hockey even back then, and I agree stupid rule.
andelsmrti 4 months ago 2
thats a goal off a rebound, how is this a conservial call?
slapshot68 5 months ago
ok i wasnt watching hockey back then so im not sure the rules then exactly, have they changed? because i dont see whats wrong with this. im not a fan of either team so im not biased, but whats in question? that he kicked it to himself? that hes in the crease?
928rsmith 5 months ago in playlist Sports moments
@928rsmith Back in 1999 no Offensive play could go in the Goaltenders crease at ANY time. His foot went into the crease and should have been called No Goal by the reff. And if people dont think thats so they were doing that in prevous games. They changed the rule to what it is today because people were complaining (almost every team and fans). and they changed it, THE NEXT DAY
SIDE NOTE The sabres also made every goal review from the "Goal" that went threw the side of the net.
x30xSabresFan 5 months ago
.....Of course Bettman isn't going to change his "ruling". but that was the part that got me pissed more than any other aspect. Bettman is not allowed to change the rules on the fly to suit his whim.
meatybeatybignbouncy 5 months ago
Being a Caps fan, I had no dog in this fight. As soon as this goal was scored, I looked at the particular rule IN THE RULEBOOK. It said nothing about possession. All it addressed was having your foot in the crease before the puck. Bettman made that stupid quote about possession within minutes of the goal, but there was NO wording in the rulebook to back it up! If you go offsides is it waved off because you have possession?
meatybeatybignbouncy 5 months ago
@meatybeatybignbouncy Actually yes, if you have possession (and control) of the puck your skates can cross the blue line before the puck.
ypodeswa 2 months ago
@ypodeswa NOW you can, but not as the rules existed that year. I swear, I read the rules straight from the book, and it didn't address this problem at all. It was a dumb rule, but a rule none the less.
meatybeatybignbouncy 2 months ago
well before the rule change and with it, its still a goal. brett hull isnt gonna stop jamming in rebounds because of a wack rule, and he was just quicker to the puck. thats sports. thats hockey. stop crying buffalo. this wasnt your cup!
PurgetheInsanity 5 months ago
If you LOOKED AT THE FREAKING RULES BEFORE THIS GOAL
It clearly stated you are not aloud to have your foot, hand, WHATEVER YOU HAVE in the crease except for you stick. AT NO TIME may any offencive player be in the crease. Shots were NO GOALS alot during the season because of it. The NHL made the rule we have now the next day (go look at when it was made) because every other team and fans (PLUS the sabres)were complaining and knew it wasnt a goal.The only reason u think it is cause u like Dallas
x30xSabresFan 5 months ago
Let's blame the terrible goaltending technique at 0:56 for causing this goal. Kids don't fall on to your gut and put yourself out of the play.
TheGoalieGuru 6 months ago
Let's say that the possession rule applies.. Brett never had possession until he kicked it to his stick. Deflecting a puck is not possessing a puck. On a delayed penalty, the offending team must possess the puck in order to stop play. Having a puck deflect off your stick will never stop that play. Brett Hull's foot was in the crease after his deflection and before his possession, therefore no goal.
unohuim 6 months ago
forever NO GOAL!!!
killpatrick63 6 months ago
this makes no sense.
totem022 7 months ago
@totem022 Which part makes no sense? LOL
meatybeatybignbouncy 2 months ago
Video comments: Okay, while a rebound off the goalie doesn't constitute a change of possession, it also doesn't count as continued possession for the shooter. That's just stupid.
Uploader comments: While I respect your opinion on this goal - I don't know exactly what the rules were at this point in hockey - using what Bettman says about hockey to support your argument is like using a bloody pipe with your fingerprints on it to prove you didn't kill a guy. He's the wrong TOOL for the job.
Vadered99 7 months ago
@Vadered99 I agree, and my comment supports your view. High and mighty Bettman sat up there and stated a rule that wasn't in the book. Everyone commenting, it was only a rule for that 1 year. I obtained the book the day after the game (They didn't have the new ones in there that quickly-LOL) and to my recollection it stated that a player could not enter the crease until the puck had entered, similar to the situation at the blue line with offsides. There was nothing talking about possession.
meatybeatybignbouncy 2 months ago
If the refs called it like they did the entire year this was no goal, this is after they made the rule change, the rule at the time said that AT NO TIME MAY ANY ATTACKING PLAYER BE IN THE DEFFENDING CREASE. Its still no goal.
x30xSabresFan 7 months ago
Based on how things were called throughout that year....once again the NHL BLEW IT!
Despite how they spun it afterwards if they called it the way it was called all yr long...it should have been NO GOAL!
Saying this.....IT WAS A GOAL and would have been every time since the rule was changed back and prior to that stupid rule to begin with!
Bottomline, I feel the Stars were justifiably rewarded HOWEVER once again the NHL BLEW it!
jaybd107 7 months ago
DALLAS STARS 1999 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!
skullmanwizard 7 months ago
@skullmanwizard you are delayed like over 12 years... time to stop celebrating :)
jimihendrixftw 6 months ago
@jimihendrixftw dude i was just trollin the buffalo sabre fans. im not even a Dallas Stars fan. I don't even live in the U.S
skullmanwizard 6 months ago
@jimihendrixftw lol i like how theres no stars fans, its only liked up twice
Redwingsaretite 6 months ago
What's great about this whole thing is that nobody blames their goalie for sucking. He sucked, he gave up a rebound right in front of the net to a wide open Stars player, get over it.
vaibanez17 8 months ago
@vaibanez17 Oh yeah because everyone knows Dominik Hasek, arguably the best goalie ever sucks right?
danynumero6 7 months ago
@danynumero6 Hasek contrary to some people's opinion is indeed human...the rules are the rules,the guy who posted this was not the one talking,the officials were...accept it...
1dallasmetalgirl 7 months ago
@danynumero6 Hasek contrary to some people's opinion is indeed human...the rules are the rules,the guy who posted this was not the one talking,the officials were...accept it...By the way,I am a Stars fan and I will admit that Hasek is indeed one of the best goalies to play the game...however...as much as this pains me to say,I think Patrick Roy was far and away the best goalie.
1dallasmetalgirl 7 months ago
shut up hes in the fucken crease retard
ianhockey10 8 months ago
@ianhockey10 lol he had the puck re read the rules
darthnater22 7 months ago
@ianhockey10 You mean the best goaltender? The one who is getting his number retired for the sabres? Yup cause he sucked. Do you even play goal? THEN SHUT UP
How old are you? 11?
x30xSabresFan 5 months ago
@NLCovers The Bruins have won the Stanley Cup and where's the pride in whining?
delinquent220 9 months ago
As A Bruins fan living in Buffalo,I've been hearing this "No Goal" crybaby shit for the last twelve years. You LOST deal with it
delinquent220 9 months ago
@delinquent220 its a big deal if uve never won a stanley cup and have as much pride as we do. ur a bruins fan so u shouldnt even say anything
NLCovers 9 months ago
@delinquent220 easy for you too say your a bruins fan man you dont get it so id shut up. its clearly a goal they should have won you always see like every single team win in every sport except for buffalo wanna know why cause we get fucked over with the rules like that crap it was a goal his foot was in the crease and then he takes it out and scores id say if his foots out of the crease and he scored which he did then its a goal
talon136 9 months ago
GO CANES! I can't stand Buffalo, and I'm tired of hearing their fucking sob stories...
FridayNightDldoFight 10 months ago
@FridayNightDldoFight ya that's why sabers are in the playoffs and canes aren't ahhhh to sad for you
JaKCO9v9 9 months ago
@JaKCO9v9 Uh....yeah...you can't even spell Sabres correctly. The Canes aren't out of the playoffs yet, and don't expect them to go quietly. When the Slugs when a cup, their fans can talk crap to us Caniacs. GO CANES!
FridayNightDldoFight 9 months ago
@FridayNightDldoFight stupid and spazzy canadiens
NLCovers 9 months ago
NO GOAL!
Marsdevilsvolta 10 months ago
It really shouldn't have been a goal. the memo wasn't passed until AFTER the game so it should've been called off. BUT of course, while no one else sees this, at 0:42 what the hell was the defenseman doing there? He should've pushed Hull away from the net then Hull wouldn't have even gotten the shot off. I think the defenseman gets a little bit of the blame there.
Chiefsplayr17 10 months ago
stupidest rule ever
Britex123 10 months ago
Anyone that watched the NHL during that season, knows this rule was enforced practically every night.
"Memo" or not, from your unnamed source, lots of goals were disallowed for this exact reason. NHL goofed big time. There's no question about that. Yes, it was a stupid rule, but a rule at the time, nonetheless. I didn't see the ref's delay the cup presentation to properly review the goal like every other time. Given the circumstances were unique.But the NHL handled this as poor as one could.
mkmike103 10 months ago
look you dumbasses the proof is front of your face, its a goal. Get the fuck over it
jcawesome2 10 months ago
Belfour, Mike Modano, and Brett Hull deserved the Cup at least once in their NHL career.
a1nall 10 months ago
no goal. since his foot WAS IN THE CREASE when he kicked it, it can't be. sabres fans such as me don't whine, we know the truth. the rule was that you CAN'T KICK THE PUCK IN THE CREASE!!!!! why can't you get that in ur frickin heads.
koko2363 10 months ago
This is the guy the NHL pays to make sure everything checks out on goals and he is still doing it today, he explained it perfectly but you ppl want to try and bend the rule. If you cant understand the possesion rule think out it like Basketball if a ball it tipped or blocked by the defense but cant come up with the ball its still the other teams possesion. same here the puck entered first it was still hulls to play and he did. End of story stop trying to bend the rule so u can bitch ppl.
Thekingcmk 10 months ago
to quote wayne gretzky when asked about this goal....."it looked like a good goal to me". if the great one says its good, its good.
everyone quit crying and just enjoy your buffalo bills....oh wait.
apc0012 11 months ago
Even if lets say it was a no gaol which according to the rules and my belief it was a GOOD GOAL, WTF does his foot have to do with anything. it didnt even touch the goalie or cuz him to not make the save. Its one thing if we debated on it interfering with him but it had nothing to do with the goal itself of shooting or saving.
Thekingcmk 11 months ago
dude but the rule that year was not to have your skate in the crease whats so hard to understand about that rule
Spiller716 10 months ago
@Spiller716 No it wasnt, the rule if u watch what he says and look it up, "a player can enter the crease as long as they have possesion of the puck" if the goalie had it or another player got it and he entered and scored then yes it would be disallowed, he never lost possesion the puck entered the crease bounced of the goalies he grabed the puck pulled it out and score. foot or not it was legal. the rule was was never you can do it period. Whats so hard about what the NHL rule book says
Thekingcmk 10 months ago
dude im not gonna argue with ur ass even commentators on nbc and versus say it was a goal call that costed the sabres a cup you just a stars fan but if we did that to the stars you would be complaining to so dont talk bs
Spiller716 10 months ago
@Spiller716 im not talking bs sabre fans and dallas haters are the only ones doing that, not my fault you guys dont know what the rules are or yall just like bending what the rules mean to you. and of course some of the commentators are going to say shit its there job to get your attention. The NHL, Every official and even Canada's great Wayne Gretzky say its a good legal goal. only ones bitching are you guys
Thekingcmk 10 months ago
and so is the NHL OFFCIALS are gonna try to cover a call that was no goal and tell me this...why goals identical to brett hulls goal called back that year in the season ??? just answer that pls
Spiller716 10 months ago
@Spiller716 No matter what i say or how i put it your not going to b e satisfied but fuck it, he even says it in the video that some officials as in refs and replay will define the rule of possession in a different way, if there are goals that they took back like his then they were robbed. Dallas never lost possession which is the key part everyone is overlooking about the rule. If any other buffalo player played it it would have been no goal but they didn't play it.
Thekingcmk 10 months ago
to be honest idc i was 7 years old when it happen so i have no real arugument but everybody has their opinion i feel if ex players for nhl say it was no goal why would they say that then nhl offcials say it is goal because clearly my father told me goals just like that 1 was called back that year and once hasek makes a save brett hull has no more possenion rite???
Spiller716 10 months ago
@Spiller716 i understand when you say that goals like that in the past and that year were missed, it happens the refs and officals watching the replay screw up because of what the guy in the video says people have there own perception of what "change of possession" is. Dallas NEVER lost possession so brett playing the puck After it entered the crease made his foot in it legal to play and shoot. THERE WAS NO RULE SAYING THE FOOT CANNOT BE INSIDE THE CREASE AT ALL.
Thekingcmk 10 months ago
well everbody has there opinion so o well
Spiller716 10 months ago
@Thekingcmk If you were alive at that time, and new the rules, it clearly stated "No offensive play may be in the Goaltending crease at any time". They changed that rule the next day.
Learn your Hockey before commenting
x30xSabresFan 5 months ago
@x30xSabresFan wow learn ur hockey first the rule BEFORE it was changed never in any way said you could NOT EVER be in the crease, the rule was as long as the attacking team had control of the puck while being shot into the crease and the Goalie never takes control of the puck (which he never did) it is still the attacking teams puck to play is as long as he does not interfere with the goalie, which he didnt, end of day the NHL and everyone else besides buffalo say its a goal.
Thekingcmk 5 months ago
@Thekingcmk Thats todays hockey, Back when this was, You couldnt go in the crease at any time.
And everyone that wasnt dallas was complaining THATS WHY THE NHL CHANGED THE RULE THE NEXT DAY
x30xSabresFan 5 months ago 2
@x30xSabresFan OMG still wrong , look i dont mind listening to people debate the fact of rule of possession and some people have made good cases on that but let me repeat NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF HOCKEY has there been a rule that says in no way can a player ever at any time go into the crease, the rule has always been about POSSESSION. this video clearly says that the rule books BEFORE that fucking game say that when hockey first was officiated even said that its all about fucking POSSESSION.
Thekingcmk 5 months ago
@x30xSabresFan this is 100% true
Steffent1493 5 months ago
I love how every NHL member, every team and every fan outside of buffalo and dallas haters say its a goal. the rule clearly says its a goal you haters just want to try and bend the rule your way. Yall say its a cover up what now your going to tell me the goverment was the ones who flew the planes into the WTC. Get a life people and get over your lose.
Thekingcmk 11 months ago
Quit crying buffalo. Should all the cowboys TDs In those superbowls count?
apc0012 11 months ago
@apc0012 As a Carolina Hurricanes and NFL Panthers fan, I must say that was cold. I don't like Buffalo, but that's just cold man.
FridayNightDldoFight 11 months ago
@FridayNightDldoFight ha, just trying to stir the pot. i got on here just to see the vid that i hadnt seen in several years and was shocked at how many bitter fans there were.
apc0012 11 months ago
you assholes got lucky in 06 when our entire defense went out on us and we end up losing in 7 games to you so if we had 3 back we win and go to the cup luck bitches
Spiller716 10 months ago
What a bunch of bullshit....look up the original rule and you will nothing about possession...but only that a players skate cannot be in the crease before the puck enters the crease. Hull's skate was clearly in the crease before he puck therefore.....NO GOAL!!!!...this was a cover up for a blown call. Yeah Dallas has the banner hanging...but that will always be a tainted banner!
mindfreak8102 11 months ago
Deflection.Our Puck.Our Goal.Our Cup.
Emoidiot187 11 months ago
according to the rules in 1999 a pass using the skate is not considered control, even if it was on purpose. therefore it should of been no goal because he had his skate in the crease before he shot the puck, which is when he was considered having control. im sick of these people saying buffalo is whining for no reason when all they have to do is look at the rules and see for themselves it was no goal
yale512 11 months ago
The only reason the buffalo fans are whining is because this is a great goal and they just wish they didn't let it in.
WoWNageVideos 11 months ago
i still say NO GOAL!!!!!! SABRES RULE!
Promill30 11 months ago
No Goal
lightening740 11 months ago
The infamous memo allowed goals where a player's skate was in the crease only if he MAINTAINED CONTROL before the skate entered the crease. In 1999, according to the rule book, kicking the puck did not constitute control. Hull didn't control the puck until he shot the puck and his skate was already in the crease before he shot. I argued for years it was a good goal before finally understanding the rules and the memo. And I'm a Sabre fan! Now I can confidently say NO GOAL!
gazaniac 1 year ago
... and the the maker - the Original Six Started with the Original One. Look up draft rights before 1950. Not going to argue.
Lovaelihn 1 year ago
The rule never said anything about possesion and control to begin with. All it said was your foot can't be in the crease if the puck isn't. This is just a cover up explanation by this asshole.
lightening740 1 year ago 29
@lightening740
"Near the end of the season the NHL 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."
get the fuck out
Nappateemu 10 months ago
@lightening740 but the puck was in the crease so its ok..you just explained it for us.
MartyTurco093 9 months ago
@lightening740 lol wow the rule clearly said that its all about possession, YOUR FOOT CANNOT ENTER THE CREASE "BEFORE" THE PUCK OR WHILE THE GOALIE HAVE POSSESSION. puck entered it bounced out hull played it with his foot while still having possession shot the puck and scored. THE ONLY this you can debate it the actual rule of possession. Thats what makes me laugh at u ppl, ur debating the wrong shit.
Thekingcmk 5 months ago
@Thekingcmk Your looking at TODAYS rule book. If you were there, at that time, And read the book, the rules clearly stated that AT NO TIME MAY ANY OFFENSIVE PLAYER BE IN THE GOAL CREASE
Sinse the entire league was up in arms about it, the NHL changed the rule the next day
This douche just tryed to bail out Dallas
x30xSabresFan 5 months ago
@Thekingcmk wow once again ur wrong NEVER has the rule been a player NEVER AT ANY TIME be in the crease. its all about possession. I have seen copys of rule books Before that fucking year never have i seen the rule you speak of. The only legit scenario that you or anyone can argue is did he have possession when he rebounded the puck that's it but instead of arguing that you ppl make up some bogus lie about what the rule said.
Thekingcmk 5 months ago
Brett Hull is a GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DINKENSPIEL 1 year ago
As a Buffalo sports fan I admit it was a goal. I disagree with your thought, though, that every team has been screwed over as bad. NO CITY IN AMERICA has been raped by bad luck in sports as bad as Buffalo. So many questionable calls and missed chances - Brett Hull goal, shot through the net vs the Flyers, "no goal" vs the Rangers in 07, music city miracle in 99 (don't get me started on that), Scott Norwood missed FG, among many many others. whatever city youre from, please give Buffalo a break.
FlutieFlakes14 1 year ago
Thats possesion?? You fucking kidding me? Sabres win the stanley cup 1999, this is no goal.
Dumb bitch who ever made this can fuck yourself.
XBalmoX 1 year ago
@XBalmoX WOW your stupid poured all over the place didnt it? This explanation is precisely in line with the rule book, and further more if Gretzky says it's goal, I'll go with his opinion over some arm chair forward wannabe
Also the Stars were up 3-2 in the series, and they were just too deep in talent and Belfour was a man on a mission, put that in place with Hitchcock out coaching Ruff, it just wasnt the Sabres time
JahaysusKahrist 1 year ago
@JahaysusKahrist sabres win the cup woot
XBalmoX 1 year ago
quite possibly the worst rule ever. I'm glad that Dallas scored and NHL scrapped the rule the following season. I don't want to imagine what if..
wookie11 1 year ago
If the puck bounced through his skates at 44 seconds in the video and he got clobbered 1.99 seconds later, would we consider it a legal hit because it was within two seconds of possession (with the time after the shot counting), or late because it was more than two seconds after possession (with that time not counting)?
Stars fans would say penalty, Sabres fans would say no penalty...and then the ref could give a three minute penalty for banging his wife and NHL would defend it afterwards 100%.
undertehlaw 1 year ago
I was at a game once before this happened where play was stopped for a good 5+ minutes while video review tried to determine which entered the crease first: the puck or the toe of a players skate. When I watched the replay at home later on, I could not tell how they determined which entered the crease first. It was ruled no goal and I still think they just flipped a coin on that one rather than using discretion: the player with a toe in the crease did NOT interfere with the goalie.
FKatzenjammer 1 year ago
His foot was BARELY in the crease, anyways. And as they explained, it was within the rules anyways. Stars won, it was eleven years ago, get over it.
mephisto773666 1 year ago
What was the controversy? It looks like a clean goal
mmeweb3411 1 year ago
@mmeweb3411 Buffalo is just dumb and can't read the rulebook... I wish I could find a copy of the rulebook but it has been a decade at this point... lol
fodnick96 1 year ago
sickening. the nhl didn't have the courage to call that goal back, despite the fact that goals like that had been called back all year long. pathetic.
scrawn111 1 year ago
BUFFALO HAD LIKE 3 OR 4 CHANCES TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP IN THE 1990'S AND THEY LOST ALL OF THEM GIVE IT UP MAN ..... IM NOT SAYING THOUGH BUFFALO IS THE CITY THAT DESERVES TO FINALLY WIN SOMETHING
DALLAS STAR FAN
:P
unknown571 1 year ago
So if a player shoots the puck on goal, and the rebound goes into the corner off the goalie, then the guy who shot the puck still has possession even though he's no in contact with the puck or within 10 feet of it? Wow what a great rule. After 16OT periods everyone had enough and the Stanley cup was on the ice before anyone could call the goal back. It was like 3AM and no one wanted to do the right thing. Somehow Dallas people don't care because they've never been in that position.
Movic06 1 year ago
So, I'm sitting here watching this show "Relive the Magic" on the NHL network and Mike Modano and Craig Ludwig are chatting about how funny it was that the refs never made any calls, like Modano's blatant hook at center ice and Belfour's body slam and punch on Varada that was just ignored, laughing like a couple of cock suckers that KNOW that they got lucky in that game. The 90's sucked for Hockey, and the Stars are a prime example, trap's,obstruction,horrid officials and phantom goals.NO GOAL!
KaneIsAble88 1 year ago
@KaneIsAble88 Right, and Buffalo didn't get away with anything dirty either.
DJHA133 1 year ago
As a Sabres fan, nothing worse than watching this goal get called back ALL YEAR....
then when it is most important, they did not even review it on the ice.
brothaman007 1 year ago
Hasek always had the option of saving the puck..Sorry Sabre fans, had to.
Truth0faliar 1 year ago
All you Buffalo fans are just sore losers. Your pissed because buffalo never beats Dallas...'92 and '93 Super Bowl, thats right DALLAS won. '99 Stanley Cup DALLAS won. Why don't you chirp those responsible for your loses....the Bills and Sabres. Cause when a team sucks in the finals its not their oppenents fault its theirs. Deal with it. Go Stars and Cowboys!
oyeah11able 1 year ago
Dallas would have won it in game 7 anyway...
propvtOlig 1 year ago
Ponder this. What if Hull had played the puck with his skate directly (or off Hasek)INTO THE NET? Is the goal legal? Anyone who says it's "no goal" if he kicked it into the net AND "no goal" the way it was actually scored is bending the rules to his/her wishes. Either he had possession or didn't. If the puck had gone into the net and not to his skate it should have been disallowed. The way it actually happened was legal. Period. On to 2010-2011. Go Bruins!
alanrdowney 1 year ago
Amazing! 248 comments (now 249) about a goal (yes it won a Cup) happening 11 YEARS AGO! Has anyone (haven't read through all 248 comments) actually READ THE RULE in effect at the time? Might be hard to find, but I'd do that before making any judgments. Having said that, it looked to me as if Hull played the puck off his skate (possession at that point) to his stick, his skate entered the crease and then he put the puck by Hasek. Rule or not, would have been a travesty had it NOT counted!
alanrdowney 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never was aware there had been an explanation until just now. Glad I saw it, gives me a much different feeling about it (not that I'm a fan of either team).
UncleShmool 1 year ago
Never was aware there had been an explanation until just now. Glad I saw it, gives me a much different feeling about it (not that I'm a fan of either team).
UncleShmool 1 year ago
Lewis lied when he said there was an official review. An official review would have had the referees at the scorer's table on the phone. That never happened. Unforgiving since it was the most important goal scored in the playoff that year.
wontonnoodle23 1 year ago
that is bull shit the goal didn't cout
MrGunnyboddy 1 year ago
Thats No goal!!! That dudes only saying what he is saying so that the nhl doesnt get in shit. He doesn teven know what he is talking about BULL SHIT!!! im a buffalo fan for time and When I say this i got so angry that is a fucking shit excuse shut up craker bitch ass cunt!!!!
robscomac 1 year ago
@robscomac calm down -.- it was a goal and im a buffalo fan haseks own teamate bumped into him anyways and tis was going on all around the league not just here.
ikilludead123 1 year ago
no goal!!!!!!!!!!
sabresman31 1 year ago
this is not an explanation. this was in no way a legal goal. the NHL rigged the stanley cup in 1999. they did it again in 2004. and again in 2009. its happening more and more. the NHL is destroying the sport of hockey.
Sabresfan640 1 year ago
@Sabresfan640 really they "rigged" it...so it must have been scripted too right? they nhl told hasek to fall over. Or told the sabers not to score?
ikilludead123 1 year ago
@Sabresfan640 Well, quit watching it then.
bydsarrett 1 year ago
And the reason that I thought the officials let the call stand, was that the refs wanted last call and the bars in Buffalo were closing at 2 AM. That was about thirty minutes after Brett Hull scored.
blazer79 1 year ago
it was a stupid rule all season long anyway. Too many legit goals were called back that season. It was a good goal and you know it. Keep telling yourself that shouldn't have counted if you want...that'll work.
MAXIMONT 1 year ago
Sabres fans wahhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhh
JFiannaca 1 year ago
People need to quit blaming Brett Hull and the Dallas Stars. If there was any fault, it would've been a referee error or the nhl.
kalteich 1 year ago
And, afterwards the Buffalo Sabres and the city of Buffalo sued the NHL for allowing such a goal like that. Just kidding! The Stars won the Stanley Cup fair and square.
khidak1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Been quoted by the actually referee, that once the goal was scored, there were to many people, such as the team, ceremony staff, and reporters, that they had no chance to actually review the play, without causing some sort of uproar. Oh well, Sabres will win it one day, and the Stars will continue to have a shitty fan base in a state that doesn't deserve hockey.
Spidysweb 1 year ago
Legit goal... No question about it... Wouldn't have mattered as the Stars would have won the cup anyway. Dallas was the better team...
SeaToby11 1 year ago
During the regular season if you had possession of the puck you could be in the crease according to what I have been able to find on the internet. I believe the only argument can be whether or not he had possession or not since he shot it and then had to kick it. However, when you watch the video I believe that most poeple would say that he did have possession.
xstalkrx 1 year ago
Listen to the guy explaining the rules beside Ron MacLean. He clearly goes step by step through the goal to explain how its a legal goal. Hull had possession. I don't know why Buffalo fans are such sore losers. Yes, I know, there's a rivalry between Buffalo and Dallas, but i think thats more because of football (the Cowboys beating buffalo for the Super bowl way back when). Seriously, I'm not taking sides (although in '99 i was somewhat a Dallas fan), but it's only sports. Don't worry about it.
raran44 1 year ago
His foot was on the fucking crease. Hockey is fucking gay and dumb.
loonmaniac 1 year ago
sabres fans wouldn't have to complain about it if they would actually win a cup!
fearthehawksndcavs24 1 year ago
The NHL could not show one single piece of tape that showed that this was how the rule was interpreted during the season, however, there were at least 20 goals taken away on plays exactly like it. Rule book my ass, they were trying to cover their ass because they knew they fucked up ... simple as that. If you don't want to hear fans "whine" about it ... DON'T LISTEN because this was THE biggest fuck-up in the history of the NHL. This goal should not have counted ... end of story.
JediDude38 1 year ago
Sorry buffalo it's a goal. His foot was right on the outer edge of the crease. It wouldn't have made a difference if his foot was 3 in. back, Hasek was down and beat. Dallas had the better team. Even if it was ruled no goal on the ice Dallas prob would have won it in OT anyway. Hull had POSSESSION which makes the foot in the crease rule null and void. Our name is on the cup, get over it!
phil7488 1 year ago
he deflected which gave him posesion..bottom line. its a goal
MartyTurco093 1 year ago
@XoSarahLoveoX again not the rule read the video comment, hell even watch the video and they tell you why its considered a goal. This was within the hour after the game ended.
KmanO9 1 year ago
@XoSarahLoveoX lol then your retarded...the rules say its a goal so its a goal..they even explained it retard
MartyTurco093 1 year ago
Ya know what, brett hull crossed the goal crease line and then scored which didn't count back then and the sabres should have one the stanley cup!!!!!!
MrGunnyboddy 1 year ago
this is why Buffalo never wins, because they get screwed...its obviously no goal because they felt bad and the following year they changed the rule...they didnt just do that for no reason
Dimmer1313 1 year ago
@Dimmer1313 you are such an ass hole.
MrGunnyboddy 1 year ago
@MrGunnyboddy oooo look it the thought boy talking shit over the internet....you know what they say, "arguing over the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win, your still retarded"
Dimmer1313 1 year ago
@Dimmer1313 they changed the rule because it was a bad rule for EVERY team. They had plans to change it even before the playoffs began but couldnt change it prior to the playoffs since thats how they played all season. But again the rule was NOT if your foot is in the crease its not a goal, since he had possession his foot can be in there when he shoots. If someone else had shot the puck, it should not have counted.
KmanO9 1 year ago
Regardless of what the rulebook said, this exact type of goal was consistently waved off throughout the season. Not once did I ever hear them use the "possession" excuse before this, obviously a case of the NHL blowing it and covering their asses.
courts7878 1 year ago
@courts7878 then the waved off goals were missed-called. I saw goals go both ways all year on that exact type of play. Some counted, others didn't. One of the major reasons it was eliminated not just this call.
KmanO9 1 year ago
Possession and control are two diff things, and just because someone "touches" the puck, it implies possession change, but not necessarily qualifies it as a gaining of control. I remember watching this goal and being so ticked, but now when I watch it, it makes sense.
123MrBee 1 year ago
@123MrBee yes i agree, if it ricocheted off his skate that would be one thing. But since he kicked it right to his tape its safe to say he had control. If only other people would understand this.
KmanO9 1 year ago
The puck hits Connolly's skate, there's your change of possession. I'm so glad that rule is out of the game.
landynberry24 1 year ago
@landynberry24 First of all, your argument is pretty vague because Connolly didn't even play in the NHL at that time. Anyway, just because the puck almost hits Holzinger's skate, doesn't mean Hull loses possession. Besides, he becomes in possession of the puck when he kicks it to himself. Simple.
Rehtomflow 1 year ago
@Rehtomflow Sorry I don't have the Buffalo Sabres all-time roster memorized.... I'm not going to argue about an 11 year old goal.
landynberry24 1 year ago
@landynberry24 I think that's a wise decision from your part.
Rehtomflow 1 year ago
@Rehtomflow Fuck ur sweet
landynberry24 1 year ago
very other team in the league gets screwed over just about the same
Not in the stanley cup game dumbfuck.
3l4rd0 1 year ago
@3l4rd0 yes but you didn't even get screwed that goal was 100% good according to the rulebook.
KmanO9 1 year ago
@KmanO9 dont let this propaganda nhl head office bullshit fool you, legally it was no goal at the time, regardless what he says the man was trying to cover it up
bufalosabresrock4444 1 year ago 11
@bufalosabresrock4444 read the description. If you had possession of the puck, you could be in the crease. Goals throughout the season exactly like this were both counted and reversed depending on the referee. The ones that were reversed like this during then were the bad calls. Not this one. Completely legit goal based on the rulebooks exact language.
KmanO9 1 year ago
@KmanO9 if thats the case, then every goal scored by a goalie, that only touched it by making a save, and the opposing team puts it in their own net, should all be reversed. taking goals away from goalies such as hextall and osgood. that rule is bullshit and doesnt even apply to this. hasek had control of the puck when he tried to push it out of the crease with his paddle, thats a change of possession and the goal should be disallowed
pwnskater 1 year ago
@KmanO9 Care to copy and paste, or type out, that exact language?
gazaniac 1 year ago
@bufalosabresrock4444 totally correct, this would have been no goal right away in reg season, but they didnt wanna say "hey hold on you didnt win yet" so they have this chump "clear it up" lol No goal
IIB20VTEC 1 year ago
@bufalosabresrock4444 when did he interfear with the goalie to he pulled it away from him and his skate was just in the crease
XMAVERICK99X 1 year ago
@bufalosabresrock4444 amen, drunk Canadians will try to justify this crap, fuck hull and fuck the NHL.
jblgti146 1 year ago
@bufalosabresrock4444 no your foot can be in the crease if you have possesion (which Brett Hull did). look at 1:01 in the video "perfectly legal goal" is what he says. And how inmature are you bitching at something thats 11 years old?
raran44 1 year ago
@bufalosabresrock4444 no goal
Sabreboy1999 1 year ago
@3l4rd0 pwned
MrBbaker9 1 year ago
What was wrong with this play? Maybe the rules were a little different 10 years ago, but I see nothing controversial about this goal.
GOODPLAYA20 1 year ago
the reason it counted was they had already begun to leave the bench, and it was in triple ot. they were not going to call it back even though it was a bullshit call. the funny thing is don cherry called brett hull out on it on Hockey night in canada
tylerschmidt94 1 year ago
Your an idiot ! !
Timberlake82 1 year ago
It wasn't a bullshit call. They explained it. He had possession as shown on the video so no infraction. I should point out that I like neither the Sabres or Stars so I have no bias. And Don Cherry was completely ass-wrong for calling out Hull as is everybody else who thinks it wasn't a goal. It was blatantly a goal as shown from every angle anyone has ever seen in regular motion or slow. No question. Also why call out Hull? He had shit to do with it. The refs/league officials had the last say
NRE66 1 year ago
@NRE66
Yay! Agreed.
From day one, I thought this was a good goal . . he kicked the puck to his stick, meaning he had possesion, BEFORE his foot entered the crease. If I'm not mistaken, you could have a foot in the crease (heck, even skate right through the crease) if you entered the crease with possesion of the puck. Hull did.
nevmiles 1 year ago
I'm a Dallas Stars ans Dallas Cowboys fan living in Buffalo for 6yrs now.Any time during the NHL season when I wear a Stars sweater(HULL or MODANO) somebody says "No Goal". And I point out the "Possession" of the puck Hull had making it HIS to play. I've learned that fans here accept ANY rule if it Benefits the Bills or Sabres.otherwise its cheating or unfair.NOTHING prevented Hasek from STOPPING that goal.and furthermore WHERE WERE HIS D-LINEMAN? GOAL STANDS.STARS WIN.
thongchaser724 1 year ago