Jefferson N. Glapski wrote:
> "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.
>
>
>
YSB. AYB?
|
