Hasek to play for Buffalo in 1999 Cup Final "Do-Overs"

[eva unit zero 271]

Basically Hasek should have his name on the cup twice and Hull's should be chiseled off, seeing as how it wasn't a legal shot at the time. And Brett Hull is an ******* unlike his dad. I remember him picking on Ray Ferraro on NBC last year. What a dick.

Just to shoot this bulls*** down...

If Hull's goal is disallowed, Buffalo does NOT suddenly win the Cup.

It would still be 3-2 Dallas in OT of Game 6, and Dallas had controlld the OT to that point. The chances of Buffalo winning the Cup were slim at best.

[puckloo39 5,686]

I was at the game in Dallas, for "Game 7" of the series, October 13, 1999. The Sabres beat the crap outta Dallas. Yes, I believe if the game had continued and the goal had been disallowed, the Sabres might very will have won the Cup that season.

The goal was not legal at the time. Everyone on the ice knew it. Bettman turned his back on Lindy Ruff's protests, literally. Players and media types, who initally said that the goal should have been disallowed, later recanted and literally changed their statements. Strange, that.

The reason I am certain the goal was illegal is because the Buffalo fans would have torn Hasek limb from limb if it HAD been his fault. I've yet, to this day, seen a single fan there blame Hasek. Not one time. Proof positive it was a bogus goal, right there.

Dallas' lone Stanley Cup banner will remain alone. It shouldn't be there at all, IMO. Hull at least has one legitimate Stanley Cup win, with the Wings.

There will be no do-over, and Hasek certainly would not participate in any case. What's done is done. Hasek would likely have retired in 1999 with a Cup, but history like that goal, can't be re-written or mulliganed.

[Booster313 138]

Just to shoot this bulls*** down...If Hull's goal is disallowed, Buffalo does NOT suddenly win the Cup.

It would still be 3-2 Dallas in OT of Game 6, and Dallas had controlld the OT to that point. The chances of Buffalo winning the Cup were slim at best.

Eva,

I've realized that you aren't the pure stat machine you would like everyone to believe you are. Your just as biased as the rest of us on here. When the stats support your fact you spew them like Xanx being handed out to mental patients at bed time, yet when you disagree with someone you angraly try to make your point fact with biased statements. If you believe that Dallas still would have won then say that, it's your opinion and your welcome to it. The fact is no one knows who would have won if the goal was disallowed.

Hockey isn't all about stats and percentages. It's also about the intangibles the X-factor.

[eva unit zero 271]

The reason I am certain the goal was illegal is because the Buffalo fans would have torn Hasek limb from limb if it HAD been his fault. I've yet, to this day, seen a single fan there blame Hasek. Not one time. Proof positive it was a bogus goal, right there.

Loo,

Just because it wasn't Hasek's fault doesn't mean the goal was bogus. It's as I said; the goal was legal on a loophole in a rule intended to preserve breakaway goals. A mid-season modification to the crease rule to allow someone with legal possession of the puck the remain in the crease even as they brought the puck out, so long as they maintained control. The wording was not the best chosen, as it was intended to preserve breakaway goals that had previously been disallowed by the crease rule. The wording basically read "A player who has legally obtained the puck and legally entered the crease may remain within the crease so long as he retains possession of the puck."

This is why, even though Hull drew the puck back out of the crease while in it, the goal was a good goal; because he never lost possession. the closest he came was bouncing a shot off hasek's pad, which does not constitute a change of possession; see delayed penalty rules for further information about that.

Hasek did everything you could have expected of him on that goal; sometimes, goalies just get beat and there's nothing they can do about it.

[savaking72 0]

If Dan O'Holloran is the ref he should do ok. He really favors the goalies I hear. Hasek got robbed in the overtime by Hull. Should have been disallowed.

[eva unit zero 271]

Eva,

I've realized that you aren't the pure stat machine you would like everyone to believe you are. Your just as biased as the rest of us on here. When the stats support your fact you spew them like Xanx being handed out to mental patients at bed time, yet when you disagree with someone you angraly try to make your point fact with biased statements. If you believe that Dallas still would have won then say that, it's your opinion and your welcome to it. The fact is no one knows who would have won if the goal was disallowed.

Hockey isn't all about stats and percentages. It's also about the intangibles the X-factor.

And Dallas had controlled play all series, and was DOMINATING the OT. My only point was that people like to say 'Buffalo should have won the Cup" even though they were down a game in OT of game 6. The chances that they come out of that with a win, and then win in Game 7 AT DALLAS were extremely slim. It wasn't a goal/no-goal that decided the Cup. Dallas was still very likely to win the Cup if Hull's goal had been disallowed.