For real. I clicked on this video thinking it was gonna be just be another RU-vid top 10, but then I got a sudden blast back to my childhood watching Sports Center every morning before school while eating breakfast.
Fun fact for any gamers: Brett Hull's "Foot in the Crease" goal happened on the same day of the very first version of Counter-Strike was publicly released
I’d argue not giving Marshawn, who was unstoppable that season, the ball was way more egregiously awful. The Lombardi trophy was right there and they tried getting cute despite having a freight train in the backfield.
@@Cravanicus It's an unpopular opinion, but I was always with Pete on that play call. He had a good reason to do it. It just didn't work out. Pete also really doesn't care if I'm with him not, I suspect..
I see these videos and think "damn, these are old. Look at the grainy footage". Then I see names like Malkin Briere Bryzgalov and realize I'm not 9 anymore.
Gretzky is overrated never that good if anything he was ahead of his time and had an AMAZING mind for the game but played in a time with very unskilled players and goaltenders all around. Even he says it. Selanne has said it best in interviews talking about how the game changed from when he himself started to end. He really really said guys weren't skilled you had maybe 3 or 4 guys on a team that were actually skilled and could play in todays game.
Gary Thorne was the voice of the NHL for me. Started with Bob Miller of LA then I started to watch more national games on the “Deuce” ESPN 2. Hard to not get your adrenaline up after he yelled goal. Bonus: anyone remember Clement, Clement hands of Cement commercial?
This was before the NHL became like most mainstream channels entirely about promoting black males to white women and hiding any positive masculine and/or cool white males from pop culture.
The Kovalev dive was what it was. You saw it. The worst dive in NHL playoff history. Selfishly, if the Nords had gone on to win the cup, I doubt they’d have left Quebec. So consequently, we had a hockey team dropped in our laps here in Denver and they won the cup that same year. People here barely knew the names of the players. Lol. But it was great. Thank you Kovalev. Go Avalanche!
That Kovalev dive was sinister. Quebec had a great team and could have beaten the Rangers that series. Would have changed the whole playoffs that year and made a big impact in hockey history. Who knows, maybe Quebec would have won it and stayed in Canada.
Kovaelv was a POS with a history of faking injuries. In 1994 against the Canucks in game 5 he faked an injury and got the Rangers a 5 minute powerplay. He miraculously recovered and started on the powerplay.
Nagano 1998 was a big thing here in Czech republic and still is considered to be the greatest success in ice hockey since the break up of Czechoslovakia. I was watching the CZE-CAN match as a small child and already then I remember I knew Gretzky was someone special and the surprise of commentators that Gretzky is not going to have a go.
@@carlosanaya4149 They blew it, they had the Greatest player of all time, and chose to send out a defensman in the shootout instead. We will never know if Gretzky would have scored, but we do know that none of the 5 shooters that they did throw out did.
Czech Republic was just a Monster back then...Jagr would have made them competitive...but Hejduk, Elias, Sykora, ect? And getting to choose between Hasek and Vokoun in Goal? That's a Rage Quit Roster.
@@carlosanaya4149 Shooting and Trick stuff is the last thing to go with Age. He lost a step in game action (and was still better than average), but he didn't lose his shot of puck handles.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 You confuse it with 2002 Czech team. Only Hašek, Jágr and Hejduk were in Nagano. And young Hejduk was unknown to N. American fans, still playing in Czech league. In fact,half of team played in Europe. That 's why they were underdogs.
If we stay inside the hockey terms he felt down like he was hit by a player who held the stick like a baseball bat and he hit him like a pitcher with all the power he had, so Kovalev kidneys & liver went flying from his body immediately 😁, that's why he felt almost dead + 90% of the body were paralyzed it seemed watching it live🤯🤦♂️. Now I know an actor who didn't get his well deserved Oskar!🤣
Yeah he would call anything and everything against the Flyers. Like a team or not as an professional referee you just can not play favorites. The minute a league of any type see's this in it's officials they should be removed. That crap has been running wild in the NFL for years too and these clowns have ruined the game.
That would come from being one of the most respected refs in the game, and being in the position to have to make more difficult calls than anyone else.
Between him and Don Koharski it was hard to tell who was worse. And what was the deal with that hair? I have seen him trip, go down in a heap, but never did it move a single hair on his head out of place. It protected his head better than any helmet.
I think Kerry Fraser was in the wrong line of work Also, that goal where the Jets player throws it in... like how did that not get called? That's not even a tough one
Cole I'll be honest - to me, it looked like he dropped the puck in the crease and the goalie knocked it in, which by the rules of hand contact back then would've been legal.
@@roguishpaladin are you forgetting about the part where he grabs the puck behind the net along the glass, skates about 10 feet, bodychecks the goalie while still holding the puck, reaches around the goal post and drops it? I was a Jets season ticket holder that year and couldn't believe that call was made.
He didn't want to Kings to lose Gretzky in the last couple minutes of the game. Should have been a 5 minute major penalty. If any other player had done that it would have been called.
Nordiques got screwed a lot. I was at that Jets game where they threw the puck in the net. I was behind the net, up about 20 rows. My buddy was convinced it was a good goal (rabid Jets fan), and I'm thinking they're gonna call it back and give a penalty for D.O.G. Nope.
Losing vs. Czechs didn't happen just because Gretzky was benched for the shootout, it happened because Hasek was in the opposing net all game long! Let's not forget that Hasek is the goalie equivalent of Gretzky; the stats of both are next-level untouchable.
@@OhHesCracked dude marty and dom played each other the game ended in 1-0 zero ot win for the sabers because marty cracked first Roy let in 9 goals when he played with canadiens
I watched that last game between Detroit & Montreal in 1966. My Dad & I were Gordie Howe & Detroit Red Wings fans. (My Dad was a good man, but he kept his cards close to his chest & wasn't always demonstrably emotional. Howe & the Wings were our meeting point, where the playing field was level between us & we were comfortable with each other). Detroit had won the first two games, but Montreal came back & won the last game in OT. It was a lousy "goal", & it broke my heart. Over the years, Dad & I would occasionally talk about that game. I'm still mad about it!
Kerry Fraiser: "People got in my vision" Also Kerry Fraiser: 15:30 I'm pretty sure that's a straight, unobstructed line between him and the contact, lol. Yikes
Because all season long the rule said if any part of the goal scorers skate touches the crease it's no goal. That's how they called it all season until the cup winning goal
Although #1 and #2 were in the finals, I think the Gretzky high stick on Gilmour is the most controversial call in the league’s history. It was the Stanley Cup’s 100th year and it was oh so close to the dream final of Toronto vs Montreal. Kerry Fraser will never be forgiven by some Leaf fans. I’ve seen that play numerous times and I can’t figure out how nobody “saw” it. There are conspiracy theories all over this call too, like the league wanted Gretzky’s Kings in the final etc.
The Leafs are maddening team their fan base is even more maddening. But in the 50+ years that I have been watching hockey I don’t think I have ever seen a “big game” controversial call go in their favor. Ever. It has always gone to the other team. In the past few years there have been some decidedly odd ones in the playoffs.
Fraser has to be the most infamous NHL ref of all time. I still remember this to this day: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ysGiUe9M07E.html
The problem is, the Non Call made no difference. It wasn't like they called a phantom penalty or anything...something got missed in the playoffs where the whistles are supposed to be put away. I'd say conspiracy if they had given the Kings a Penalty...but no calls happen all the time.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 ???? How can you say that a non-call has no effect on the game??? It was 3-2 in the series for the Leafs, in OT of game 6. A high stick that drew blood was an automatic major penalty and game misconduct in 1993. So if called correctly it would have been a 5-minute penalty in OT for the Leafs to win the series with Gretzky out of the game. But nope! Gretzky then scores seconds later to win in OT. Remind me again how the non-call made no difference?
I can't imagine peak Hasek being beaten by late-stage Gretzky. I can imagine him being beaten by late-stage Datsyuk, but that's a very different matchup.
In the 1998 offseason, the rule on video replay was changed. It used to be that it was only up to the ref to call for a review on a goal. That got expanded to allow the review booth to call for one, as well. This rule changed after Kerry Fraser refused to review a goal in a crucial Game 5 between Dallas and San Jose in the first round of the '98 playoffs. The game-winning goal was scored by Dallas while one of their players (Jamie Langenbrunner) was in the crease and practically sitting in Mike Vernon's lap. It was blatantly obvious goaltender interference and the Shark players were screaming at Fraser immediately after the puck went in and he just skated away, refusing to review it. The Sharks then lost the series, two nights later. The subsequent rule change was nicknamed the "Kerry Fraser Rule".
@@squirrelydan3 who's to say? Refs do aggravating things all the time. He must've been convinced that Langenbrunner either wasn't actually in the crease or didn't have an effect on the play.
Not sure when this list came out. But the no call on the boarding by the kings on the devils in the 2012 finals led to only a 5minute major against Bernier in the opposite end. Had the correct 5 min major boarding at center been called, the two would’ve cancelled each other out and the game could’ve been much closer.
The thing no one ever talks about with the Briere controversy is that earlier that very game, one of the Penguins goals came directly off of a blown wave-off of icing. So both teams benefited from bad non-calls so it's effectively a wash.
Eddie Coyle not sure why you brought up sophisticated in quotations ? Was that quoted somewhere? Definitely not from me, and humans have been vulgar for a very very long time. It’s more widely expressed and accessible with technology advances of the times...but okay sure 👍
18:46 - "It hit a Jet player", the announcer says. I wasn't aware that the puck had to not hit an offensive player for the goal to count. 19:28 - I think the linesman is signalling no offside rather than no goal (but how long does he have to hold the signal?).
Because according to the rules, and the way every single similar play was ruled throughout that season, it was not a legally scored goal. Obviously his toe being in the crease had no bearing on whether he was going to score, but according to the rules, no goal.
The NHL released a memo to teams on March 3, 1999 that delineated 10 scenarios and how they would be called to add clarification to what once was a hard-and-fast rule that if you were in the crease before the puck that a goal would be disallowed. The scenario detailed in Section 9 of the memo stated "An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. RESULT: Goal is allowed. The offside rule rationale applies." Section 10's scenario stated "Attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original attacking player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. RESULT: Goal is disallowed. The attacking player did not maintain control of the puck." If the kick is considered possession, then it is a goal. But if a kick is not possession, then he regained possession while his skate is in the crease, therefore it should not be a goal. The memo was put together to eliminate gray areas and all it did was create one on the biggest goal of the year. Essentially, it was a judgment call by the league, and since A. there was no announcement of a review and B. the celebration was already on, there was no real way to pick anything but the call of a goal.
clamboni9, well I didn’t know about any memo changing any rules for that year. All I knew was that a player with control of the puck is allowed in the crease and if you want to split hairs, you can see at 21:51 of this video that Hulls feet are outside of the crease while he is kicking the puck to his stick (a controlled move), his left foot enters the crease as he’s shooting the puck (also a controlled move). It’s a good goal.
It was still only game 6 and the Sabres would have still have had to find a way to score the Game-winning goal and then have to somehow win in Dallas in game 7. And the better more talented team, the Dallas Stars, won! Also, it was a stupid rule as well. And no not a Stars fan.
I was at Loughran's on main st in Amherst ny and immediately said "his skate was in the crease" nobody else seemed to know what happened.. eventually i came to realize it was a good goal but people here still say no goal
RONALDO SMIFF JENKINS , EA sports refs are internally wired to the game and are even susceptible to the User changing frequency of calls. So you're statement seems about as redundant as it could possibly be
Yeah but it actually evened it up. The Pens had scored their 2nd or 3rd goal (I forget) on a blown icing. The Pens iced it, the Flyers got there, for some reason the linesman decided after the icing to not blow the whistle which caused a crazy scramble for the Flyers and the Pens scored on it. So it was just Karma/The Hockey Gods/God/whatever, evening it up. So it was offsides, but it was just. Besides, the Flyers destroyed the Pens in that series.
I never liked that crease rule anyways, if you're not affecting the goaltender, there's no issue. The point of rules like that is to ensure that a player cannot effect the ability of the goaltender in in an illegal way. Hull wasn't touching the goalie, wasn't affecting the goalie in anyway, in fact, if you backed him up 5 feet, he'd still score the goal the same way. Good goal.
thats why its #1. by the rules, at that moment, it was in fact a good goal. the controversy is the concept of having a rule that everyone has to adapt their game to follow...and then right before the playoffs quietly change it. im not sure that even with a review, it would have been disallowed. even if it was, im not sure the sabres would have forced a game 7. even if they did, im not sure that they would have won game 7...but to lose that way felt cheap.
I wanna say something. I've always hated Kerry Fraser. I always thought he called games terribly and pulled the eye of the ppl watching to himself. But he's one of the only ones to have to cojones to go on TV and say "I was right" about the Alain Côté goal and "I was wrong" about the Gretzky/Gilmour call. And I admire him for that.
Kerry Fraser’s biggest problem as a referee was that very, very, far too frequently he would suddenly decide that the game wasn’t about the players and it was about him. He would start calling things just to be the centre of attention and provocative, it seemed. Even his skating style changed, to more arrogant and swagger-y.
When i saw Fraser at an airport, i called him a piece of sht to his face for not calling the high stick on 99. It wasn't a missed call. He purposely didnt call a penalty because it would've took him out for the rest of the game.
When i saw Fraser at an airport, i called him a piece of sht to his face for not calling the high stick on 99. It wasn't a missed call. He purposely didnt call a penalty because it would've took him out for the rest of the game.
PIVOTAL game 6, tied 1-1 I LIKE HOW HE SAYS "YEAH IT WAS OFFSIDE, JUST 5 FEET" referring to how bad it was when referring to the 1980 Islanders give me goal. Pause at 12:15 Thats the length of 2 grown men, about 12 feet, AND THE PUCK IS STILL 2 FEET BEHIND THE LINE!! No wonder the Flyers all stopped. I never broke this play down with slow mo frame by frame etc, but WOW
There was a little message or notation sent out to all the teams that being in the crease had to also include interfering with the goaltender so that was a very small rule change the GM’s in the coaches know about it but a lot of the players didn’t
That jets goal is pure gold. I'm surprised we didnt see the goalie who leaves his stick across the crease when he was pulled. They changed the rules because of it. Or the defenceman in net for shootouts. Again, changed the rulebook for it.
Yeah the honorable mentions were almost all more controversial than any on the actual list. How the one scored against the blackhawks isn't #1 is nonsense. The guy literally grabs the puck in his hand skates all the way around to the other side of the net and tosses the puck in, and everyone in the stadium including the refs saw it.
The ones that made the list were more controversial because they happened in bigger games, like Stanley Cup clinching games, Olympics semis, series deciding games, etc.
That was Game 3. It was a horrible miss-call. Brutal. However, the Blues won games 4,5,& 6 to win the series.... so that made it less painful for us Blues fans. Oh, and the Cup.
Well if #1 is No goal, then #2 should be A Goal :P. Not saying that cause i don't like the Lighting, saying it because, my hometown boy Kiprusoff was robed off his careering crowing moment.
still shitty to change a rule just before the playoffs and give no definitive answer to the coach and fans of the losing team as to why there wasnt even a review to determine if Hull maintained possession (by the replay, it appears to touch both Hasek and the defenseman before Hull kick passes the puck back to himself for the goal).
That Bret Hull goal should have been reversed. That was game six. The Sabres would have go back to Dallas for game seven, if we would have won that overtime. That was still highly unlikely for them to win the cup that year.
What gets me is how people still think this should not have been a goal. He kicked it to his stick before his foot (re)entered the crease. Then he had possession and scored the goal. He did not interfere with the Hasek, stopping him from being able to make the play. It was a good goal and within the rules as they stood at that time.
The Flames getting robbed is worse than the brett hull goal. In all likelihood, the Stars go on to win the cup that year anyways. That was 100% a goal for the flames and should have been the cup clincher. Not only did they end up losing that game but they had to go to Tampa for game 7. kick in the nuts
