"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <NoOne183@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:gaKYj.24184$_g.1392@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Jefferson N. Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> message news:CzJYj.153837$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.
It was overturned after the season in the owners meetings. You mean goals
like in the Oilers/Stars series in 1999? You'd be tied 2-2 with the same
standards.
> Furthermore, Hasek called the goal fair and said Hull had him beat.
No he didn't. But when Hull was signed and Bowman was coaching the Red
Wings
he called the Stanley Cup winners to come forward. When Hull came forward,
he said "Not so fast."
Perhaps we could ask D*ll*s St*rs forward Stu Barnes.
> 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.
Interestingly, players can still put themselves offside.
Interestingly, when a puck rebounds off the goalie or an opposing player,
and goes out of play, the face off is in the opposing player's defensive
zone, BECAUSE A CHANGE IN POSSESSION HAS OCCURRED. If the puck goes off
the
post out of play without going off an opposing player, the face off will
be
outside the zone. No change in possession occurred.
Interestingly, there are some idiots who will buy the most obvious
covering
up of one's ass you will ever see.
> "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.
Hence it was silly to compare a 1998-1999 season game under 1999-2000
rules.
I'm glad you now understand how ****ing stupid you were.
|
