"Eric Kemp" <eric.kemp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Mr2Zj.751$7k1.691@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jefferson N. Glapski wrote:
>> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <NoOne183@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:gaKYj.24184$_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?
I am very bright, thanks.
|
