Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!You may remember him saying the call was fair but you are full of shit.
Your memory of what the rules is similarly fucked in the head.
You need anger management. With that said, it does not matter. The goal
counted according to the officials and reviews after the goal scored. Hull
had control and thus was allowed to have his toe nail in the crease. Build
a bridge and get over it.
But not according to the rules. Do you have trouble following rules, son?
Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!Director of Officiating Bryan Lewis looked at the replays within seconds
of Hull's goal, as did two other replay officials, and ruled that the
goal counted because of a March 25 directive issued by NHL senior vice
president Colin Campbell regarding the crease rule. The clarification to
the rule states that an attacking player can stay in the crease even if
the puck leaves the blue-painted area as long as he maintains control of
the puck.
No they didn't.
Busted!
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1016256/index.htm
I caught you... Now, everyone is lying but you. Good to know!
Hardly. You are simply a gullible fool swallowing the bullshit the NHL fed
the sheep trying to cover their ass. But thanks for finding that article. It
quite clearly points out it was tainted. You didn't win shit.
For example, if the NHL "reviews everything," as they also proclaimed, then
how did John Leclair manage to score through the side of the net the
following year? A simple review showed the opposite. Why did the protocol of
reviews change (something only those of us in attendance could know).
Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!Brett Hull was in the crease, and given the rules as they were then, it
was not a goal. Thus, the goal was not legal.
Wrong, the rule did not specifically state you could not be in the crease
as noted above. Colin Campbell said as long as the player had posession of
the puck, it was fair game. What part of "any player can stay in the
crease even if the puck leaves the blue-painted area" did you not
understand?
The ass-covering part. Wait, I do understand that. You are still looking for
WMD.
Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!Yes, it sounds like the St*rs would have definitely lost game 7.
Yet, being wounded, having broken limbs, they stayed in it for 3 quarters
and scored.
3 quarters? Silly, stupid, ignorant fuckstick Texan. Hockey has periods, not
quarters. Perhaps you should learn the time period in which hockey games are
divided before lecturing on the rules. Do you know what a hockey puck is?
Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!No one cares about your passionate plea that it did not count 9 years later.
Apparently you do. Guilt lasts a long time, even if you are supporting the
guilty party.
Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!Murder was legal despite the rule being ridiculous! I'm not going to jail!
Do you not see how nuts you are acting? You need help dude. Usually, when
I read the boards, I see people just passionate and enjoying good
discussion, but you have lost the plot. You need anger management.
You just admitted the goal was not legitimate. Read what you typed.
Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!Best wishes to you. I have no desire to continue conversating with someone
as unstable as you.
You invent words as well as you invent rules. Both are meaningless.