ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight

[Nevadaref]

"Coach, I didn't even make the Top Ten."

[Nevadaref]

BTW I agree with Dan that the Yankee/Baltimore homerun call belongs on the list, but I also think that Maradona goal does too. Denkinger simply missed a close play. These two weren't even close.

[Smitty]

I would vote for the Brett Hull "foot in the crease" being on the list. The officials didn't even go to replay to check it, and it was a Stanley Cup Final game. Inexcusable. And yes, I'm a Buffalo fan. We have so little to remember, but we will never forget the foot in the crease.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I would vote for the Brett Hull "foot in the crease" being on the list. The officials didn't even go to replay to check it, and it was a Stanley Cup Final game. Inexcusable. And yes, I'm a Buffalo fan. We have so little to remember, but we will never forget the foot in the crease.

I don't agree because that was a stupid rule in the first place, which iirc had only been around for a year or so when that play happened. Also that rule is not the same today.

In any reasonable view, there was nothing wrong with that hockey goal.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree because that was a stupid rule in the first place, which iirc had only been around for a year or so when that play happened. Also that rule is not the same today.

In any reasonable view, there was nothing wrong with that hockey goal.

Except the view of someone following the rules. It was the rule then, stupid or not, and they called it every time in the regular season. The guy could have his little toe in the crease and they called it no goal. In a Stanley Cup overtime game, you can't just abandon a rule you've been calling all year. His whole foot was in there. If I was from Dallas, I would be very happy, though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Except the view of someone following the rules. It was the rule then, stupid or not, and they called it every time in the regular season. The guy could have his little toe in the crease and they called it no goal. In a Stanley Cup overtime game, you can't just abandon a rule you've been calling all year. His whole foot was in there. If I was from Dallas, I would be very happy, though.

Is this rule not unlike 3 seconds in the key? How would we view a game winning goal scored by a player who had one foot in the lane for 3 seconds before receiving a pass tha they turned around and scored as time expired?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is this rule not unlike 3 seconds in the key? How would we view a game winning goal scored by a player who had one foot in the lane for 3 seconds before receiving a pass tha they turned around and scored as time expired?

I honestly don't know. But would we view it differently if we'd been calling 3 seconds on the play for the last 5 months, and then ignored it in a playoff series? Even when we had the ability to look at it on video?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is this rule not unlike 3 seconds in the key? How would we view a game winning goal scored by a player who had one foot in the lane for 3 seconds before receiving a pass tha they turned around and scored as time expired?

I'm merely a hockey fan, not a hockey official, but I do know that a successful hockey goal is a much rarer occurrence than a successful basketball shot. I don't see it at all like the 3-second rule. I think (I really have no clue) that the foot in the crease rule was put in to protect the goalies - keep players away, but again I really have no idea. The point is, they called it to an excruciating extent in the regular season - seriously, the slightest bit of skate in that blue area and they'd disallow the goal. Plus they have the luxury of replay to use. The fact that this particular goal was in the 3rd overtime (I think) of a critical Stanley Cup Final game magnified it to certainly belong in the top 10 botched calls of all time. For a Buffalo fan anyway.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree because that was a stupid rule in the first place, which iirc had only been around for a year or so when that play happened. Also that rule is not the same today.

In any reasonable view, there was nothing wrong with that hockey goal.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree because that was a stupid rule in the first place, which iirc had only been around for a year or so when that play happened. Also that rule is not the same today.

In any reasonable view, there was nothing wrong with that hockey goal.

Since when do the officials judge how stupid or important rules are? I'm guessing you don't officiate hockey, but I've witnessed you and others here criticize basketball officials for ignoring rules that they think are stupid. Your analysis on hockey rules doesn't matter. This post is a little hypocritical imo.

And yeah... nothing wrong with the goal, except for breaking a rule. (Isn't the view I just took a reasonable one?).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Since when do the officials judge how stupid or important rules are? I'm guessing you don't officiate hockey, but I've witnessed you and others here criticize basketball officials for ignoring rules that they think are stupid. Your analysis on hockey rules doesn't matter. This post is a little hypocritical imo.

And yeah... nothing wrong with the goal, except for breaking a rule. (Isn't the view I just took a reasonable one?).

I'll acknowledge that you make a fine point. However, I'm not totally ignorant about hockey. Although I have never officiated the game, I did grow up playing it and got to a pretty high level in junior hockey. Let's just say that I was good enough that Kevin Constantine was my coach at one point.

I just think that the league was mistaken and that rule was ridiculous. I'm glad that the goal counted.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I just think that the league was mistaken and that rule was ridiculous. I'm glad that the goal counted.

As a rules junkie, you are being incredibly hypocritical in agreeing with a very specific rule being ignored. You just lost a lot of credibility with me.

[Texas Aggie]

but we will never forget the foot in the crease.

Sheesh. Get over it. If they had wiped it out, it only would have delayed the inevitable. Buffalo should be greatful they were even playing the Stars in a game 6 that year, and in OT to boot.

The way the NHL is officiated (i.e. by the seat of the pants), a 10th of a blade in a crease is not anywhere near the advantage some refs give teams by picking and choosing which physical play to penalize.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Sheesh. Get over it. If they had wiped it out, it only would have delayed the inevitable. Buffalo should be greatful they were even playing the Stars in a game 6 that year, and in OT to boot.

The way the NHL is officiated (i.e. by the seat of the pants), a 10th of a blade in a crease is not anywhere near the advantage some refs give teams by picking and choosing which physical play to penalize.

They called it all year long and for infractions smaller than Hull's. Yes, they should have cleared the ice. All season long they disallowed goals. The rule was changed for the following season officially. But unofficially, it changed when they didn't have the guts to make the call from the booth.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I would vote for the Brett Hull "foot in the crease" being on the list. The officials didn't even go to replay to check it, and it was a Stanley Cup Final game. Inexcusable. And yes, I'm a Buffalo fan. We have so little to remember, but we will never forget the foot in the crease.

I would put the blame on the NHL bigwigs in the replay booth for being gutless. Sorta like calling a game one way for 31 minutes and calling your first hand check then. All season they had disallowed goals for that reason.