NHL officials supervisor Bryan Lewis said Hull's goal counted because he maintained possession of the puck from the time he played it beyond the crease. "A puck that rebounds off the goalie, the goal post, an opposing player is not deemed to be a change of possession," Lewis said. "Therefore, Hull would be deemed to be in 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."
Official explains why goal counts
Posted: Tuesday June 22, 1999 07:47 PM
| || The Buffalo Sabres claimed it was an illegal goal because Hull (right) had his skate in the crease. Rick Stewart/Allsport |
BUFFALO, N.Y. (CNN/SI) -- No time is good for a goal controversy. But the sixth and final game of the Stanley Cup finals -- well into triple overtime -- is one of the worst.
The NHL's official response: This one counts because the player had full control of the puck.
Brett Hull scored to give Dallas a 2-1 victory in triple overtime and the Stanley Cup championship, but the Buffalo Sabres
claimed it was an illegal goal because Hull had his skate in the crease.
Bryan Lewis, the NHL's director of officiating, said the goal counted because Hull "had control of the puck, and it didn't matter that his skate was in the crease."
"We determined that Hull played the puck, had possession of the puck and the goal was good," Lewis said.
"His foot was in first. Our immediate reaction was that it didn't matter. Our view was that he had control. Hull was in possession and control of the puck."
The NHL has been studying the possibility of changing the rule. The rule disallows a goal if an offensive player has any part of his body in the goalie crease.
Lewis, appearing at a news conference, insisted that Hull had possession of the puck, even though it bounced off Buffalo goaltender Dominik Hasek
. He said as soon as the goal was scored, off-ice officials immediately went to the video replay for a review.
"Every such goal has been reviewed by the NHL since the start of the season, including this one," Lewis said.
Originally Posted by Hollywood
It was not a legal goal!!! Here is the rule before it was changed
Rule 78 section (b): "Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If a player has entered the crease prior to the puck, and subsequently the puck should enter the net while such conditions prevail, the apparent goal shall not be allowed"
Why is that so hard for Dallas fans to understand?
Here is a quote from one of the refs that night "I pointed at the net indicating that the puck had gone in, it crossed the goal line, but I was not sure Hull wasn't in the crease" Terry Gregson-NHL ref
When Lindy Ruff ask Bettman why the play was not reviewed, he just turned his back on Lindy and gave no answer. Yea, sounds legit to me.
The world accepts it? Sports Illustrated refused to put the Stars on the cover not to mention the countless individuals who spoke out at the time.
"The NHL held up games moe than 200 times for crease reviews during that regular season, yet for reasons unknown, Bryan Lewis and his staff let Brett Hulls goal stand. They just left piece of their credibility on the ice." Steve Dryden EIC of Hockey news