Who thought it was a good idea to change the goalie crease to mammoth proportions and then not allow any goals if an attacking player has a minuscule part of his body in the area? Hasek has spread out practically his entire body and he's still not covering the length of the crease. The other problem I had with the rule was the way in which they changed the size of the goalie crease. That's the way I have always looked at it. Once we tell them what the rule was, they will find it the silliest rule ever.
Could someone in the future watch the replay of Hull's infamous goal and be able to point out why it should not have counted? The worst part is that in the future we will have such a hard time explaining this rule to future generations. I remember watching game after game during this era and wanting to pull my hair out at the ridiculous amount of goals being disallowed because a quarter-inch of someone's skate blade was in the crease. Yet, the biggest problem of all was the rule itself in the first place.Ĭan you think of a dumber rule that has taken away so many seemingly harmless goals from hockey games? It is not as if someone ran over Hasek to score the game-winning goal or as if Hull was firmly entrenched inside the crease long before the puck made its way to the goal.īut again, the problem was that the NHL was not consistent with its rule book on this particular goal. The NHL did the right thing in allowing the goal to stand. While watching the replays it is evident that Hull had possession of the puck, had his first shot stopped by Hasek, after which he collected the rebound, had the part of his left skate blade enter the crease at the same time the puck left the crease, and he jammed home the game-winning goal. Like I said, in my eyes it was a good goal. It was not exactly the best explanation, but given the circumstances, it is just about all you can explain. It is his puck then to shoot and score albeit a foot may or may not be in the crease prior to." The rebound off the goalie does not change anything. "Hull had possession and control of the puck. "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."
The problem was, they had strictly enforced this new rule all season long, including overturning similarly scored goals like Hull's.
In my opinion, the NHL got the call on Hull's goal correct.
0 kommentar(er)
