The thrilling conclusion of the Broncos-Bills game stirred up emotions for Buffalo Sabres head coach Lindy Ruff, reminding him of the infamous 1999 Stanley Cup ‘no goal’ incident.
In Buffalo, N.Y., Ruff understands the turmoil that Sean McDermott and the Buffalo Bills are experiencing after their gut-wrenching 33-30 overtime defeat to the Denver Broncos in the divisional playoff. This outcome marks yet another disheartening chapter in Buffalo’s sports saga, particularly due to the contentious officiating involved. During a critical moment, Bills receiver Brandin Cooks seemingly made a catch; however, as he fell, Broncos defensive back Ja’Quan McMillian snatched the ball from his grasp. The officials ruled it an interception, prompting McDermott to call a timeout, seeking clarification and urging them to reassess the play. Had it been deemed a completed pass, the Bills would have had a chance to attempt a game-winning field goal. Instead, the Broncos capitalized on the opportunity, ultimately securing a victory with their own field goal.
Ruff shared in the emotional aftermath felt by many Buffalo fans, but he also resonated deeply with McDermott, given his own experiences as a coach. Back during the 1999 Stanley Cup Final, Ruff was at the helm of the Sabres when they faced a heartbreaking loss due to a controversial goal by Brett Hull in triple overtime of Game 6. As the Dallas Stars celebrated their championship, Ruff scrutinized the goal and noticed that Hull’s skate was positioned in the crease when he directed the puck into the net. Frustration boiled over as he implored NHL commissioner Gary Bettman for a review, conveying disbelief that such a pivotal decision went unexamined.
"I wanted Bettman to answer why there was no review," Ruff recounted after the 1999 game. "He almost turned his back on me. There was no answer. There was no review. It felt as if everyone knew it was a flawed call."
In the wake of that series, Sabres supporters gathered at city hall to express their gratitude to the team, and in a powerful moment, Ruff took the mic and uttered two words: "No goal." The crowd erupted, and this phrase has since become one of the most haunting what-ifs in Buffalo sports lore.
Following Saturday's loss to Denver, McDermott delivered a passionate critique regarding the controversial call on the overtime play involving Cooks. "It’s hard for me to — and I’ve seen the footage — understand how it was ruled like that," McDermott expressed after the game. "If that’s the ruling, then why wasn’t it reviewed more carefully? It seems only logical to ensure the accuracy of such a critical moment in the game. We were in a prime position at the 20-yard line, poised to kick a game-winning field goal.
"But I’m speaking out because I stand for Buffalo, dammit. What transpired isn’t how it should unfold, in my opinion. These players put three hours of hard work on the field, giving everything they’ve got. To not even consider reviewing the call is why I feel upset."
Reflecting on the situation, Ruff couldn’t help but draw parallels to his own past experience nearly three decades prior. "The scenario Sean referenced feels eerily similar to our ‘No Goal’ in ’99," Ruff noted after a practice with the Sabres on Sunday. "What is the rule, anyway? That debate is familiar to me. If we’re able to take a few minutes to determine whether the clock expired in the game against the Jaguars, why couldn't we take a few minutes to ascertain if the receiver was down while holding the ball? Why was the decision made so quickly? While I may not have all the details, it felt akin to being stabbed in the gut. That’s the sensation I experienced."
In a post-game interview, referee Carl Cheffers provided insight into the decision, explaining, "The receiver must complete the process of making a catch. He was going to the ground during this process and lost possession when hitting the ground. The defender gained control at that moment, which is why he was awarded the interception."
Cheffers added that New York's review confirmed the ruling, but this explanation did little to appease McDermott.
"That play isn't close to being a valid ruling," McDermott asserted. "To me, that’s clearly a catch. I examined the footage multiple times, and no one can convince me that the ball wasn't firmly in Buffalo's possession. I am baffled by how the NFL managed it, especially given the manner in which it unfolded. The players and fans deserve clarity on this issue."
Ruff felt a deep connection to McDermott’s sentiments. The Bills had their share of mistakes, including four other turnovers, alongside the disputed interception. Much like the Sabres in 1999, the Bills faced numerous factors contributing to their season's end. However, coping with the realization that one of those elements was out of their control is undeniably challenging.
"It’s simply an emotional response to the game and its conclusion," Ruff remarked. "You aren’t assigning blame; rather, you desire a clearer explanation. It feels as though a better call could have been made—like in baseball, where the tie goes to the runner. I always assumed the same applied in football, but perhaps I’m just a biased Bills fan. That’s likely how others will interpret my viewpoint."
What do you think? Was the call justified, or did the Bills get robbed? Feel free to share your thoughts!
