Soon after the controversial Brett Hull goal on June 19, 1999, the NHL changed it's rule concerning the goalie's crease. The new rule states that it's up to the reff to decide if a goal is ok or not. Basically if the goal is scored, and there is no interference with the goalie, the goal is ok. Your toe can even be in the crease. In a way I feel this is a good thing. Last season so many goals got disallowed because someone's shoe lace was in the crease. Which, in my opinion, is a silly reason to disallow a goal. All I am hoping that will happen with this change, is that the goalie's protection won't be lessened by making the crease rule more lenient. The crease is the only safe zone the goalie has on the ice. It's there for their protection. As long as their space isn't invaded upon during the scoring of a goal, then I don't see a problem.

This still doesn't justify Brett Hull's goal. If that goal had been scored in the first period, it would have been disallowed. Possesion or not, it still would have been disallowed. But because it was in the third overtime, and everyone was tired, and everything was simply dragging on too long, they allowed it. Which isn't fair to all the people on Buffalo who worked so hard to make it as far as they did. I'm sure if you look back on all those goals disallowed during the 98-99 season, I'm sure most of them would have been ok goals under the new "rule". I'm sure most of them had "possession" of the puck and didn't interfere with the goal tender. But I guess that doesn't matter now, right Mr. Bettman?