Re: Why does Marty Turco suck?

"Jefferson N. Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
message news:CzJYj.153837$Cj7.9710@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks for implying it wasn't a goal in 1999. The Stars wouldn't have 
> gotten to the Cup in 1999 under today's rules either.

You can ***** about it all you want, but the rule was over turned because 
too many goals were disallowed just because the player had his toe in the 
crease.

Furthermore, Hasek called the goal fair and said Hull had him beat.

Lastly, Bryan Lewis said the goal counted:

"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.

"Hull had possession and control of the puck. The rebound off the goalie 
does not change anything. It is his puck then to shoot and score albeit a 
foot may or may not be in the crease prior to."

"Did he or did he not have possession and control? Our view was yes, he
did. 
He played the puck from his foot to his stick, shot and scored."


> The Giants wouldn't have won the Super Bowl last year playing with 1977 
> rules either.

Comparing the two is silly at best.