" 

 == 1999 Stanley Cup Final  Ignorance of Possesion Rules and Bias in wording == 

 In the 1999 season summary, I believe there is significant bias in the article. 

 Point by Point: 

 In the sixth game of the seven-game series, Brett Hull's triple-overtime goal - one that remains in dispute - How can something remain in dispute 5 and 1/2 years after it was decided conclusively by NHL officials still be ""in dispute"" ?  If something was decided, it can no longer be in dispute.  

 as Hull's skate was visibly in the goal creaseended the series, and the Stars were awarded the Cup. (In 1999, it was illegal to score a goal whilst an offensive player's skate was in the goal crease. - This statement ignores the puck possesion continuance rule, that was was even discussed by Gary Thorne and Bill Clement while there 'appeared' to be some question to the legality of the goal. The 1999 NHL rulebook also allowed for a person in posession of the puck to enter the goal crease. Hull's first shot was from outside of the crease, while shooting momentum carried his foot into the crease. The subsequent 2 rebounds came right back to Hull's stick. The goal was allowed to stand by officials on the ice, and contrary to popular thought, was reviewed by replay officials. Possession of the puck was what made the goal legal in the eyes of NHL officials. The puck meerly bounced off Hasek's left leg pad, and was only controlled on the stick by Hull's 3 shots. Possesion of the puck was therefore maintained by Hull, which would make the goal legal.  

 At the time, even Dallas Morning News hockey writer Keith Gave questioned the legality of the goal. 
 This may have been the case, but Keith Gave was notrious in Dallas for NOT being a pro-Stars beat writer.  His tenure at the Dallas Morning News was short lived, in comparison to writers at the Morning News since. 
 Regardless, the article fails to mention that those supporting the legality of the goal included Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun, Don Cherry of the CBC, and Wayne Gretzky - all of whom generally have broader appeal and understanding of the game than Keith Gave would.   

 This article has a general appearance of being either a) Pro-Buffalo Sabres  or  b) Anti-Dallas Stars  or c) Both 

 I suggest opposing viewpoints on this 'controversial' event in the history of the Buffalo Sabres, Dallas Stars, and the NHL be allowed on this page."