In a playoff hockey game, very few things are certain. Yet there are some guarantees even the most cautious bettor could make. There will be enough uncalled penalties for each team's fans to whine about for weeks, for one thing. The announcers will refer to at least one player as a "warrior".
And if there's a controversial goal, Barry Melrose will bring up the 1999 Cup-winner by Brett Hull.
It's irritating at the least, because there are whole groups of people watching these games that don't know what a blowhard Melrose is. Some, upon finding out that he played and coached at the NHL level, might actually think he's an authority. These poor deluded folks may simply take him at his word - or at his two words: "no goal". But yet, in this instance as in so many others, he's utterly wrong.
It's surprising how often the goal gets brought up. But it's shocking how often the people I talk to about it confront me with Melrose's words. How can I, a plebian fan, disagree with the venerated Barry Melrose? Such an appeal to authority might leave me speechless, but for the number of hockey figures I can quote disagreeing with him - Wayne Gretzky, most famously ("Ha! I see your coach/broadcaster and raise you one legend!"). That usually ends the "but so-and-so said" portion of the debate, which brings the real issue front and center. It doesn't matter if Barry Melrose is the one that says it. The only thing that matters is whether he can back it up.
He can't. It's not completely his fault. A large share of the blame has to go to the NHL, which is notoriously bad about communicating its rules to the public. A fan watching the 1998-99 season might never have known the entire rule, had they not seen a game it affected.
It might be worth reviewing the actual play itself at this point - it's certainly worth telling, given that some people's entire exposure to the goal at this point is Barry Melrose and the famous still shot of Hull's skate in the crease.
Over fourteen minutes into the third overtime period, Mike Modano drives a wrist shot at Hasek. The Buffalo goaltender deflects the puck, which bounces out directly to Brett Hull. Hull - still outside the crease at this point - stickhandles briefly to get a handle on the puck, and then shoots. Hasek stops that one as well, and the puck bounces right back toward Hull. Still standing outside the crease, Hull kicks the puck to get it onto his stick. As the puck slides over to his stick, Hull's foot moves into the crease as a result of his kick, while the puck remains outside the crease. Hull shoots, buries the shot, and the game ends.
That's the play, and anyone who became a fan of the NHL after the 1999 Finals probably wonders what the fuss is about. During any other season, the only reason to talk about the goal would have been to reminisce over past Cup winners. But during the 1998-99 season, there was a rule in place that forbade players from preceding the puck into the crease, and it was enforced strictly by video replay. Never before or since have so many people heard so many times the dreaded words, "The play is under review." The video replay portion of the rule was scrapped immediately following the end of the season. The meeting to discuss the rule was already scheduled before the playoffs concluded, but there is little doubt that this incident closed the book on any parties that were thinking of endorsing the idea of keeping the rule.
So when the goal was shown again on replay, many people saw Hull's foot in the crease and immediately thought it should be disallowed. They'd seen goals disallowed just like it all year, and the only evidence needed was exactly what that still shot showed: a foot in the crease and the puck outside of it.
Except that wasn't the complete rule. Early in the season, the NHL had sent out a league-wide memo amending the rule to allow the puck carrier to enter the crease. Since Hull took possession of the puck by kicking it to his stick, it was perfectly legal for him to infringe on the crease while he was shooting.
Unfortunately, a great number of people didn't know that at the time. The memo itself wasn't exactly breaking news, so the media never really reported it. Even the media itself seemed largely ignorant of the rule the following day; most reporters seemed as if they'd never heard of the rule until the league's response to criticism over the goal. Some even went so far as to suggest the NHL made the amendment up, and in fact that is still the most common objection by far that I hear to the goal at this point. People believe that the NHL was so afraid of this criticism that they made up that portion of the rule to justify what had happened. Some of you reading this article still believe it, and are mentally calling me an NHL apologist for not believing it as well.
I don't agree for a simple reason: I saw the rule enforced that way well before the Stanley Cup Finals. More than once, in fact. But then, I watch quite a bit of hockey. So much hockey, in fact, that I couldn't even remember a specific game. It took almost half an hour searching the web to find an example - a half hour Barry could have spent rather profitably before opening his mouth. On January 19th, with St. Louis playing at home against Phoenix, Greg Adams scored to put the Coyotes up 4-2 on a Tocchet pass. Adams was clearly in the crease when shooting, and the puck was outside the crease at the beginning of the shot, yet the goal was allowed. Why? Because Adams had possession of the puck, according to the officials. In fact, Adams had the puck for barely a split second, but that was enough. Quenneville, the St. Louis coach at the time, disputed the goal - but only because he disagreed that Adams entered the crease after he got the puck. "He has to have possession before he enters the crease," he said after the game.
Clearly, Quenneville understood the rule in January, over five months before the Stars would score in the same manner. Yet five years later, Melrose still hasn't gotten a clue.