Talk:No goal

Renaming this article
I've never heard of this being specifically called "No Goal". It could be referred to any "no goal" call in particular. I think it should be moved to Brett Hull's 1999 overtime goal or something similar. --Wafulz 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I doubt the incident itself should have a separate article. More likely, it should be part of a larger article like 1999 Stanley Cup Playoffs (which doesn't exist yet either, but at least there are equivalents from more recent years to give an idea of what it would look like). --Michael Snow 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind seeing that article created. If I have time this weekend, I might go ahead and do it. --Wafulz 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for having the popular name of a particular sports play as its own article (Wide Right, Music City Miracle), but as it stands, this article is too short for even a stub. There is already more content at the Buffalo Sabres main page... --Jaysweet 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've provided some more context. I don't know about renaming yet; the Buffalo version is significant enough to discuss, but not well-developed enough to have its own article (though upon more reading I'm persuaded that it at least could be). If it eventually is, then "No Goal (Buffalo Sabres)" or "No Goal (1999 Stanley Cup)" might be appropriate places to move that content. --Michael Snow 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My question is this: Is it widely known as "No Goal?" I've always just heard of it referred to as "Brett Hull's goal" or something similar on pretty much every discussion (online and offline). --Wafulz 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be in use as the name for this event in Buffalo, at least. To illustrate that, I've found an article from the Buffalo News with the phrase, even eight years later. Some forum and message board postings exist, too, for what that's worth. The name is regional, to be sure, but the problem is that as you indicate, it doesn't really have a name elsewhere, so there's nothing else to call it in the title of an article. --Michael Snow 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm from Buffalo and I just typed "No Goal" into the search box specifically to find this incident. Here it is and here I am.Clashwho 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To call it "Brett Hull's Goal" would be a misnomer as it was most definitely not a goal. Perhaps we could call it "Bettman's Boner." --Cjs56 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Sabres info
A good faith editor recently removed the info about the famous "No Goal" play in the 1999 Stanley Cup. I restored it, because I do think that the "No Goal" is a notable part of Buffalo sports lore, and there are numerous precedents for having an article about a single play -- as long as it is notable, of course, and I think this one is.

However, as others discussed above, it may make sense to have the sports term "No goal" and the famous Sabres "No Goal" play as separate articles. I would not be opposed to this. --Jaysweet 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "No goal" isn't Sabres specific. Like the lead says, it's a generic term. It's already discussed in the Stanley Cup Finals article, and should only be included here as an example. Will (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your second attempt is much better and I won't revert it. However, I do have to point out that just because it is a generic term does not necessarily mean that it cannot also be the common name of a particular moment in sports lore.  Also see The Fumble and Wide Right, both generic terms which have their own article relating to sports lore.
 * As I said, it makes sense that No goal address the term. But I think one could make a strong case for a separate article along the lines of No Goal (sports lore) or something like that, as suggested above.
 * What I'm getting at that maybe you are missing is that while soccer fans call the Hand of God goal by that name, hockey fans (particularly those from New York State in the USA) refer to the Brett Hull goal as "No Goal." That's just what they call it...  So while "No goal" is generic, "No Goal" is not.  See what I mean? --Jaysweet 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)