 |
On Tue, 20 May 2008 05:48:39 -0700 (PDT), Pauli G <...@hotmail.com
On May 20, 1:03 am, "Jefferson N. Glapski"
<...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
exactly. We're talking about the Brett Hull un-goal.
|
|
On Tue, 20 May 2008 05:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Enright <...@yahoo.com
On May 20, 8:48 am, Pauli G <...@hotmail.com
If anyone knows, Jefferson knows. I read it on the back of his truck.
-Tom Enright
|
|
On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:41:19 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Tom Enright" <...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I smell a custom bumper sticker or two for the Michigan game.
|
|
On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:05:10 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"Pauli G" <...@hotmail.comnews:dba66439-ba94-4044-bb71-
Except Brett Hull's goal would be considered a goal under todays rules.
Yeah, he was an inch inside of the crease but he did not interfere with the
goalie.
|
|
On Tue, 20 May 2008 23:57:22 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc04...
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.
The Giants wouldn't have won the Super Bowl last year playing with 1977
rules either.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 00:38:36 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.commessage news...@pd7urf2no...
You can bitch 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.
Furthermore, Hasek called the goal fair and said Hull had him beat.
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.
"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."
Comparing the two is silly at best.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:32:23 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc07...
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.
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.
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.
Hence it was silly to compare a 1998-1999 season game under 1999-2000 rules.
I'm glad you now understand how fucking stupid you were.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:40:08 -0400, Eric Kemp <...@cox.net
YSB. AYB?
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 03:14:08 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Eric Kemp" <...@newsfe24.lga...
I am very bright, thanks.
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 04:17:02 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc06...
Here's something you wrote a minute before this post:
"I have no desire to continue conversating with someone as unstable as you."
Despite the fact "conversating" is not a word, it is pretty clear you meant
"converse." What is more unstable than you saying one thing a minute ago and
doing the exact opposite in the following minute.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:50:26 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.commessage news...@pd7urf1no...
I agree. It was over turned after the season and for good reason. Because it
was a ridiculous rule. Good call!
The rule you speak of came to the league in 1997 and was highly
controversial, and then removed 2 years later.
Yes, he did! He said it was a fair goal and there was no controvreversey.
Bryan Lewis's thoughts count more than yours. Sorry!
The rule you speak of came to the league in 1997 and was highly
controversial, and then removed 2 years later.Therefore it is nothing like
your other examples, fucktard.
With that said, don't fret. Hull won Hasek a Stanley Cup 2 years later.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 00:02:36 -0500, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc
Don't Taze Me, Bro! wrote, On 5/20/08 11:50 PM:
Abandon all hope, dude. Nothing good can come from this argument. He
shall not be moved.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:23:06 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"Chris Bellomy" <...@supernews.com...
It would appear that way.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:41:14 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc05...
Cite it then.
He actually said:
"It's disappointing. We fight hard for two or three extra months and worked
so hard. We tried to do everything. Just because somebody upstairs didn't
care, the season finished a little early." - Dominik Hasek, Buffalo Sabres
Goaltender
Not really. Nobody believes Lewis. The majority of people know it was no
goal. The other people, who live in places where hockey is not understood,
either have no fucking clue or know it wasn't a goal, but dishonestly
pretend it was. So are you clueless or dishonest?
Let me quote from the same source you did, cunt:
"Throughout the season, goals very similar to Hull's had been disallowed.
Considering all the evidence, I conclude that the league blew the call and
then scrambled like hell to cover its ass."
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:44:59 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.commessage news...@pd7urf1no...
I am asking you to provide a link to that exact quote. I have googled it and
found nothing.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Just+because+somebody+upstairs+didn%27t+ca re%2C+the+season+finished+a+little+early.&btnG=Search
Furthermore, I specifically remember him saying the call was fair.
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.
I have explained that the rule was (a) undesired by most of hockey, (b)
considered b.s. and (c) removed after two years. Brett Hull's tippy toes
were in the crease. The goal was scored. The goal counted. And even when you
break it down, the goal was legal. So move on, get over it, and stop being a
stinky twat.
Modano played with a broken wrist for the final three games. Hull played
with a torn medial collateral ligament in his left knee and a groin strain
for the previous two games.
END RESULT? STARS SCORE... Goal was legal despite the rule being ridiculous
at best.
Get over it fag hag.
You can have the final word, "cunt."
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 03:13:04 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc05...
No problem.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816095612/www.nogoal.com/page7.htm
I, however, am still awaiting your citation. 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.
No they didn't. How can you explain why the protocol for reviewing the goal
suddenly changed? Unlike you, I was at the game in person. There was no
review.
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.
Do you cheat on your husband? Do you teach your kids to cheat at school? Are
you a Patriots fan? A fan of the 1972 USSR basketball team?
Yes, it sounds like the St*rs would have definitely lost game 7.
Goal was legal despite the rule being ridiculous? Thanks for admitting it
was illegitimate.
Murder was legal despite the rule being ridiculous! I'm not going to jail!
You've just admitted that the rule was the rule and that you disagree with
the rule. The only question we have to answer is whether your opinion can
alter the NHL rulebook. It cannot.
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 03:25:17 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.commessage news...@pd7urf2no...
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.
Busted!
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1016256/index. htm
I caught you... Now, everyone is lying but you. Good to know!
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?
Yet, being wounded, having broken limbs, they stayed in it for 3 quarters
and scored.
SORRY BITCH... CRY OVER THERE ------
No one cares about your passionate plea that it did not count 9 years later.
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.
Best wishes to you. I have no desire to continue conversating with someone
as unstable as you.
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 04:15:24 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc02...
But not according to the rules. Do you have trouble following rules, son?
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).
The ass-covering part. Wait, I do understand that. You are still looking for
WMD.
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?
Apparently you do. Guilt lasts a long time, even if you are supporting the
guilty party.
You just admitted the goal was not legitimate. Read what you typed.
You invent words as well as you invent rules. Both are meaningless.
|
|
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:22:08 -0400, "finsfan" <...@cogeco.ca
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc05...
O yeah- judging by this quote I'd say Hasek was completely AOK with the
goal-----
The upset Buffalo Sabres' goalie after the Dallas Stars won the
Stanley Cup on a questionable goal from Brett Hull in overtime:
"I don't understand what the video judge is doing. Maybe he was
in the bathroom. Maybe he was sleeping. Maybe he doesn't know the rule."
-- Dominic Hasek - June 1999
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 02:04:29 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
"finsfan" <...@read2.cgocable.net...
Hasek is not an honest person then, because he specifically told the media
here that he thought the goal was legit even if somewhat questionable.
Whatever the case, it does not matter what he thinks.
As I said, Hull won him a championship at a later time. :-)
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 04:04:06 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@trnddc07...
It sure seemed to matter what he thought when you were inventing bullshit
and making stuff up. Of course, we can find it cited. You can't.
So you are a Red Wings fan when convenient? You must have really enjoyed the
Red Wings win, especially the goal that was determined a goal by video
replay.
|
|
On Thu, 22 May 2008 02:21:46 -0400, <NHL
"Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@pd7urf2no...
: "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <...@NoWhere.com
:
: So you are a Red Wings fan when convenient? You must have really enjoyed the
: Red Wings win, especially the goal that was determined a goal by video
: replay.
:
Don't group that dingbat in w/ Red Wing fans.
He's a Stars homer, but I doubt he would know if that
meant the team, or the shiny blinky things in the
sky.
Ya know, he's been tazed so that may have something to do w/
his stupidity - but I doubt it.
|
|
On Fri, 23 May 2008 03:01:23 GMT, "Jefferson N. Glapski" <...@PENNSTATEglapski.com
<NHL
Excellent post.
|
|
|