Hasek and Hull

[going_top_shelf 6]

So Brett Hull bangs in on obvious no goal against the Buffalo Sabres in the 1999 finals. Then, three years later they both win a cup in Detroit. Does anyone know if any words were exchanged about the goal while the two of them played for the Red Wings?????? Anything would be great.

[KrazyGangsta 79]

I'd highly doubt it.

[SoDakWing 8]

does it really matter? They won the cup for us... thats all that matters

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

They said that they never talked about it.

[Z and D for the C 712]

End of the day it shouldn't matter if his skate was in the crease or not. It was going to go in whether his foot was a half of a millimeter in our 5 inches outside. rules like that are stupid and maybe the league was just using common sense.

[Tane 17]

Legal goal actually.

Hull had Possesion before his Skate entered the crease. He Kicked it with his left skate to his stick. His Skate entered the Crease after the Kick, but before the Puck got to his stick. Once the Kick happened he had Possesion.

That's what i always thought. Now the Argument could arise, Does kicking the puck to your stick equate "Possesion"? Because you were allowed to be in the crease if you had Possesion of the Puck. I believe once his foot made contact with the puck, an intentional Kick to his stick, He had Possesion, and therefore, when his Skate DID enter the crease, he entered the crease legally - While having Posession of the Puck.

The most misunderstood Goal of all time IMO

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Legal goal actually.

Hull had Possesion before his Skate entered the crease. He Kicked it with his left skate to his stick. His Skate entered the Crease after the Kick, but before the Puck got to his stick. Once the Kick happened he had Possesion.

That's what i always thought. Now the Argument could arise, Does kicking the puck to your stick equate "Possesion"? Because you were allowed to be in the crease if you had Possesion of the Puck. I believe once his foot made contact with the puck, an intentional Kick to his stick, He had Possesion, and therefore, when his Skate DID enter the crease, he entered the crease legally - While having Posession of the Puck.

The most misunderstood Goal of all time IMO

I would have loved to have seen what would've happened had they actually reviewed the goal during the Cup celebration and called it back. No way that was going to happen, even if it was discovered that it shouldn't have counted, but fun to think about nonetheless.

[Flamezfan 0]

PErsonally, don't know if they exchanged words or not.

About the goal, I thought it was legal, after all the Sabers could have argued it right away (it was in Buffalo), and the officals could have stopped any celebration early on (which they didn't). PErsonally, it was a marginal legal goal.

On the plus side, it got rid of a horrible rule.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Legal goal actually.

Hull had Possesion before his Skate entered the crease. He Kicked it with his left skate to his stick. His Skate entered the Crease after the Kick, but before the Puck got to his stick. Once the Kick happened he had Possesion.

That's what i always thought. Now the Argument could arise, Does kicking the puck to your stick equate "Possesion"? Because you were allowed to be in the crease if you had Possesion of the Puck. I believe once his foot made contact with the puck, an intentional Kick to his stick, He had Possesion, and therefore, when his Skate DID enter the crease, he entered the crease legally - While having Posession of the Puck.

The most misunderstood Goal of all time IMO

Negative. The rule stated that the puck had to precede the skater into the crease, possession or not.

The whole "possession" rule was never heard of until the NHL made the ruling on the Hull go/no goal.

PErsonally, don't know if they exchanged words or not.

About the goal, I thought it was legal, after all the Sabers could have argued it right away (it was in Buffalo), and the officals could have stopped any celebration early on (which they didn't). PErsonally, it was a marginal legal goal.

On the plus side, it got rid of a horrible rule.

Okay, you go out on the ice and tell those guys that they need to go back the bench because maybe they haven't won the Stanley Cup yet.

Yeah, wasn't gonna happen.

Edited November 28, 2008 by MacK_Attack

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Personally I was looking forward to learning about Hasek and Hull fighting over "The Goal" during their time in Detroit with a good old pillow fight or Boggle tournament. I am thoroughly disappointed that neither happened.

[Jarret_G 0]

I heard Bowman actually had these guys room together. I read it somewhere...in SI maybe? I clipped all the articles that i could find from the 2002 team so i'll take a look to see where Hasek said that.

I also remember reading from Hasek that he never brought it up, and that it was in the past so it didn't matter.

For the record i was a Sabres fan at the time (became a wings fan after they signed Hasek). And stayed up to watch the entire game. The fact that they didn't even review the goal was ridiculous. They reviewed nearly every goal that year (first year without a 50 goal scorer) and didn't review the goal that cost a team the stanley cup. I still have nightmares about that. I mean sure, Hasek did win a cup in 2002, but he was in his prime in 1999 and easily would have won the conn smythe. It would have been nice to see him win a cup then.

But i suppose...if he won a cup in '99, would he have signed with the wings in '02, and then would i be a wings fan? I guess everything worked out in the end.

[Jarret_G 0]

.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Jarret_G

[shannyfan1414 0]

wrong thread

Edited November 29, 2008 by shannyfan1414

[eva unit zero 271]

I heard Bowman actually had these guys room together. I read it somewhere...in SI maybe? I clipped all the articles that i could find from the 2002 team so i'll take a look to see where Hasek said that.

I also remember reading from Hasek that he never brought it up, and that it was in the past so it didn't matter.

For the record i was a Sabres fan at the time (became a wings fan after they signed Hasek). And stayed up to watch the entire game. The fact that they didn't even review the goal was ridiculous. They reviewed nearly every goal that year (first year without a 50 goal scorer) and didn't review the goal that cost a team the stanley cup. I still have nightmares about that. I mean sure, Hasek did win a cup in 2002, but he was in his prime in 1999 and easily would have won the conn smythe. It would have been nice to see him win a cup then.

But i suppose...if he won a cup in '99, would he have signed with the wings in '02, and then would i be a wings fan? I guess everything worked out in the end.

That goal was very close to illegal, but it was legal. Here's why.

Hull was legally in the crease; when Hull rotates and puts his left foot in the crease, he has possession of the puck. That is the minimum requirement for legal entry of the crease at the time. Had Hull stuck his foot in before gaining possession, the goal would have been illegal. It was the difference between a puck that is covered by a defenseman in the crease and outside the crease.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

That goal was very close to illegal, but it was legal. Here's why.

Hull was legally in the crease; when Hull rotates and puts his left foot in the crease, he has possession of the puck. That is the minimum requirement for legal entry of the crease at the time. Had Hull stuck his foot in before gaining possession, the goal would have been illegal. It was the difference between a puck that is covered by a defenseman in the crease and outside the crease.

I doubt you'd ever be able to convince a Sabres fan of that

[Nev 1,085]

I have a hard time believing Hull could keep quiet about ANYTHING

[BeeRYCE 2]

I don't think Brett Hull understood him anyway...

[rage 24]

It's funny that there are still people fighting over this goal.

Man, I'd hate to be a Buffalo fan!!

[lets go pavel 2]

Actually, I heard they settled their differences over an old-fashioned 3-round game of rochambeau. Apparently on the first throw Hull went top shelf with paper, but Dom flopped in the crease and kicked up scissors. Dom 1, Hull 0. On the second throw Dom came way out of his crease to throw scissors again, but mishandled it and Hull slapped up a wicked rock from the faceoff circle. Dom 1, Hull 1. On the final throw Hull went scissors, but tried to get a little too close and Dom came flying out of his crease and slid a rock at Hull. Hull went head over heels, Dom won 2-1, and they lived happily ever after.

Edited November 29, 2008 by lets go pavel

[Jarret_G 0]

That goal was very close to illegal, but it was legal. Here's why.

Hull was legally in the crease; when Hull rotates and puts his left foot in the crease, he has possession of the puck. That is the minimum requirement for legal entry of the crease at the time. Had Hull stuck his foot in before gaining possession, the goal would have been illegal. It was the difference between a puck that is covered by a defenseman in the crease and outside the crease.

I wasn't saying it wasn't a goal or not...just how it was disapointing that it wasn't reviewed.

A player can cover the puck inside the crease...if he pulls it from outside the crease first. That way it would only be delay of game as if it was covered anywhere on the ice, not a penalty shot, two separate situations.

After watching the video many times, it probably was a goal, but if you also look at how many goals were reviewed during the year for really no reason...it was just disapointing.

[shadow47 1]

It boggles me how anyone can maintain Hull "kicked the puck to his stick". That is all Bettman could come up with, when has Gary had a clue about anything remotely hockey-related. Seriously guys, rewatch the goal.

[Jarret_G 0]

Going back into the archives...the rule was a player needed to have posession AND control before their skate was in the crease. It was clear he had posession, the puck went off his skate. But he didn't have control until it touched his stick...at which point he was in the crease.

A lot of people will say he had control when it hit his skate....ironically i couldn't find the definition of control in the NHL rulebook, but i know for hockey canada a player is considered in control when he propells the puck with his stick.

Going back to the Hull goal....by hockey canada definition he wouldnt have had control until his foot was in the crease....therefore no goal.

Horse$hit rule...that's why it was eliminated, would have been nice to see a game seven though.

.....on another note, you'd think i would have let this go by now, it's been almost 10 years.

If you liked that goal...also check out these.

and

Edited November 30, 2008 by Jarret_G

[unkempt 0]

Actually, I remember when Hull had just retired, journalists asked Hasek what he thought of Hull. He had only words of praise for Hull (...exceptional forward, etc. ). Then somebody said " but it's the guy who scored that illegal goal on you SCF. " h

Hasek iMmediately reacted "then I take everything back!" And everybody laughed knowing it was a joke. So I think Hasek had no problem with the goal in the end.