Weekes Head Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 He already has two points in his Toronto debut, has two powerplay assists as the Leafs are up 2-0 on the Isles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodeurfanatic Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 It didn't take that long for him to fit in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 He's better than Gonchar. The Leafs fans are also talking about how well he plays defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrisjoe Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 3-0 on reichel goal that just ate up dipietro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I think that Leetch will fit in well. He said during the 1st period that all the veterans on the Leafs made it easy & very welcoming. He should add a good presence, too. You can't have too much veteran character for the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 3 assists so far tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodeurfanatic Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Isles score No shutout for belfour! HAHAHAHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bg. Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 islanders just can't beat a team leetch is on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Man Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Glenn Healy called Belfour "the best goaltender in the game" between periods. How many pucks did he take in the head during his playing days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 (edited) (1) Maybe he was referring to Brodeur's play in the last two weeks? (2) Speaking of pucks to the head.... it's a good thing Ray Scampinello is retiring at the end of the year. The helmetless linesman took TWO pucks off the dome last night. I'm impressed that Scampy returned from both injuries. Edited March 5, 2004 by Don Whiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 With all of these Rag$ being spewed throughout the league, I'm running out of teams I don't hate. Though in Leetch's case, I already hated the fvcking whinning cry baby leafs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 (1) Maybe he was referring to Brodeur's play in the last two weeks? (2) Speaking of pucks to the head.... it's a good thing Ray Scampinello is retiring at the end of the year. The helmetless linesman took TWO pucks off the dome last night. I'm impressed that Scampy returned from both injuries. The first one was off the rump. I can't believe the one off his noggin didn't even leave a mark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I enjoyed that game a lot at work . There was a choice of that or the Rangers-Bruins. I am not watching the Rangers on TV anymore the rest of the season! I saw all I needed to see in the boxscore. Messysaurus: 20:00 ice-time. I'll go to whatever games I have left which isn't many. But as far as watching them on TV, the ban is on for the rest of the season. Instead, I'll devote my time to the Maple Leafs. A team with character! Leetch looked different in that Maple Leaf blue #2 jersey. But was still the same great player. Three assists with a natural D-partner and potential Norris candidate in Bryan McCabe. Not surprising to me at all that he fit right in . The great ones make it look easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTCB Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 (edited) I enjoyed that game a lot at work . There was a choice of that or the Rangers-Bruins. I am not watching the Rangers on TV anymore the rest of the season! I saw all I needed to see in the boxscore. Messysaurus: 20:00 ice-time. I'll go to whatever games I have left which isn't many. But as far as watching them on TV, the ban is on for the rest of the season. Instead, I'll devote my time to the Maple Leafs. A team with character! Leetch looked different in that Maple Leaf blue #2 jersey. But was still the same great player. Three assists with a natural D-partner and potential Norris candidate in Bryan McCabe. Not surprising to me at all that he fit right in . The great ones make it look easy. I HAVE RETURNED!!! Derek21 boasting about how much he loves the Leafs now hs made me absolutely sick to my stomach, I feel compelled to speak about the Leafs... You know why I hate the Leafs so much? Because of their fans, they think they "invented hockey", they talk down to Sabres fans like myself, thinking because they won Cups when there were 6 teams was an AMAZING accomplishment, oh so great, heads or tails, heads, Toronto wins the cup! Please... Sabres have been around since 1970, in that span they have been to 2 Finals, and have missed the playoffs I think 8 times in 33 years....Leaf$ Zero Cup Appearences (thank for Wayne Gretzky for 1993!)...and oh yes, 1999 Eastern Conference Finals, Sabres in 5, thank you very much...but yet, de$pite all this, I still hear trash from Leafs fans as if the Sabres are inferior...may I ask why??? Why, because they have been around longer? Please TO give me a break! I was at Wayne Gretzky's Restaurant in TO when the Devils hosted TO in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference QuarterFinals (I think it was 2000, the year the Devs won it all), it was the game where the Devils held TO to 6 shots on goal....well Im in a room with a bunch of TO fans and Sykora scores 30 seconds ina nd I went NUTS...of course I got cursed out....but the funny thing is almost all the TO fans I talked to, the reason TO lost the series was because of injuries...I said to one fan "Did it ever dawn on you that maybe the Devils are just better? The guy looked at me like I was nuts....thats one example why I hate this friggin team with such a passion it hurts..... And of course being a Yankee fan, I hear TO fans moan and whine about the Yankees all the time, but if their payroll is 2 1/2 X the amount of the Sabres, and they get Leetch, oh, thats perfectly ok..what a bunch of hypocrites they are...I dont complain about $ anymore...it is what it is... Theres no greater thrill Ill get personally then to see the Leafs lose...Derek21, I completely understand your reasoning for pulling for TO...Leetch was a great Ranger so it makes sense...but believe you me, Toronto winning may perhaps be one of the darkest days I ever see as a sports fan!! Edited March 5, 2004 by Legend Of the Clown Banner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I knew I could bring you out of retirement with this . Welcome back ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Well, LCB, I'm sure you hate the Stars & their fans, too, so that's 2 out of 3 against me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 NO GOAL!!! NO GOAL!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTCB Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 (edited) NO GOAL!!! NO GOAL!!! Nice comeback, I never heard of No Goal, what is that? Edited March 5, 2004 by Legend Of the Clown Banner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Hey man....I'm trying to support a suffering Sabres fan. IMO and in anyone with half a brain's opinion Hulls "goal" was no goal according to the rules that year. No need to jump on my back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Hey man....I'm trying to support a suffering Sabres fan. IMO and in anyone with half a brain's opinion Hulls "goal" was no goal according to the rules that year. No need to jump on my back. Ayup. My Cup winners (Niewy may hate me for this): 1995 - Devils 1996 - Avs 1997 - Red Wings 1998 - Red Wings 1999 - Sabres 2000 - Devils 2001 - Avs 2002 - Red Wings 2003 - Devils That goal shouldn't have counted. 99.9% of similar goals during the regular season were called back. No goal. Was it a stupid rule? Maybe. Did the players have to abide by the rules. I would think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Don Whiting Posted on Mar 5 2004, 05:07 PM QUOTE (pattyelias @ Mar 5 2004, 04:55 PM) Hey man....I'm trying to support a suffering Sabres fan. IMO and in anyone with half a brain's opinion Hulls "goal" was no goal according to the rules that year. No need to jump on my back. Ayup. My Cup winners (Niewy may hate me for this): 1995 - Devils 1996 - Avs 1997 - Red Wings 1998 - Red Wings 1999 - Sabres 2000 - Devils 2001 - Avs 2002 - Red Wings 2003 - Devils Don.....even if the goal didn't count, the game still would've continued and who knows what would've happened. Even if the Sabres did win game 6, who know's what would've happened in game 7. All I'm saying is that your cup winners list should read: 1999-TBD Nonetheless, they still got cheated and even as a non-Sabres fan I was sick to my stomach watching the replay. Come on out and admit the fraud Nieuwy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Whatever. MANY people disagree about that, including the NHL and its refs. And the Stars ARE the 1999 Stanley Cup Champion. Jeez, from fans who had to put up with "half a Cup" taunts, you should be the last to jump on "no goal" cries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 His foot was in the crease and according to the rule that year it should've been no goal. Unlike Sabres fans, I don't think if the RIGHT call was made on Hull's "goal" that the Sabres were guaranteed the cup, but when something stinks it stinks. As for the half a cup bs, its nowhere near the same thing as NO GOAL! You wanna know why? Because every single team that year played 48 games in the regular season. In 1999, every team that was eliminated in the playoffs wasn't done in on a bs non-call regarding the crease rule. Honestly, that goal would've been reviewed in the regular season, and the fact that it was allowed to stand in overtime in game 6 of the Cup finals is a shanda! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 As for the NHL agreeing with the call, they had no choice to. However, please remind me when exactly the crease rule was changed. Did it happen to come in the immediate aftermath of the Stars winning the Cup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nieuwy25 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I'm not going to argue this. I'm just going to post these excerpts (with links to the whole article) to show that not everyone agrees. If you don't like what the NHL had to say, that's your right. And to answer your question, pattyelias, I've put the statements in bold. canoe.ca Immediately after Hull's goal, referees Bill McCreary and Terry Gregson gathered in front of the penalty box with linesmen Kevin Collins and Gord Broseker. Although none of the on-ice officials phoned the video goal judge's booth, where Lewis and his assistant Charlie Banfield were situated, Lewis said his video team reviewed the play from six to eight different angles and ruled it a goal. Lewis called down to the penalty box and let one of the off-ice officials know the Hull goal would stand. Lewis insisted Hull had possession of the puck, even though it bounced off Hasek. Although this was a first-time explanation given to most observers, Lewis claimed a memo was sent to each club March 25 outlining such a circumstance. His explanation made sense, even though some cynics believed it was something the NHL contrived on the spot. "Are there reasons that a guy can have his foot in the crease and score a goal? Absolutely," Lewis said. "The debate here seems to be, '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." But did possession change when when Stars forward Jere Lehtinen's weak shot hit Hasek's glove? "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 in possession, (in) control of the puck, and allowed to shoot and score a goal, even though one foot would be in the crease in advance of the puck." canoe.ca Unfortunately for the National Hockey League, millions of people who don't know the rules, including many in the media and apparently every radio personality in the United States, somehow saw the goal as tainted because Hull's foot was in the crease. But there should have been no controversy whatsoever. When Hull first kicked the rebound on to his stick, he had neither foot in the crease. At the instant he kicked the puck, he became in control of it. It was only in the follow-through of that kick that his left foot moved into the crease. The control began as soon as his skate blade touched the puck, and once you're in control, you can plant both feet in the crease and sing the modern major-general's song from Pirates of Penzance before scoring if you want to. The fact that goals were waved off during the season because of skate tips in the crease is totally irrelevant. They were never the skate tips of the puck carrier. By moving the puck from his skate to his stick, Hull became the puck carrier. He was in control, and if you're in control, you can take the puck into the crease, just as you can precede the puck over blue line without being offside. canoe.ca BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- The NHL found itself embroiled in a goal controversy involving its man-in-the-crease rule at the worst possible time, in the sixth and final game of the Stanley Cup finals on Saturday night. The 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. canoe.ca Commissioner Gary Bettman yesterday refused to admit the NHL got caught with its pants down during Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final. In fact, replays suggest Buffalo Sabres coach Lindy Ruff and a number of ill-informed media types were barking up the wrong tree. Bettman, along with Game 6 referee Terry Gregson and others, told reporters the process for determining a goal's legitimacy "was followed to a T" after the Dallas Stars' Brett Hull scored in triple overtime early Sunday to decide the NHL championship. Even so, league governors voted on Monday to abolish the use of video replay on suspected crease-rule violations, leaving it up to the judgment of the referees. "I think what happened here was people believed when they looked at the replay that -- aha -- Hull's toe was in the crease, no goal," Bettman said. "The fact is, too many people didn't understand the rule." The folks in the video replay box, including the NHL's supervisor of officials, Bryan Lewis, ruled Hull had possession of the puck before it entered the crease and, as a result, the goal stood. geocities.com It was the NHL's worst nightmare -- to have one of the most exciting, if lowest scoring, finals in years decided by a controversial play. TV replays showed Hull's left skate in the crease before he shot."Can he have a foot in (the crease) and the goal count? Yes," Lewis said. "He played the puck from his foot to his stick and shot and scored. He was deemed to be in control and possession of the puck even if a skate was in crease." Lewis said this very scenario -- a skate being in the crease but a goal being counted -- was contained in a March 25 memorandum to officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.