Thursday, May 2, 2019

PAPPY OR STEMMER?

Yet another year and another anniversary since the Toronto Maple Leafs last captured the Stanley Cup on this date in 1967. Eager to avoid a seventh and deciding game, the Leafs 3-1 victory in game 6 at Maple Leaf Gardens over the Montreal Canadiens put an end to the Cup final.

In the history of the Toronto Maple Leafs, several Cup-clinching goals instantly come to mind. Bill Barilko's overtime thriller in 1951 is an example. Going further back, Pete Langelle's goal in the 1942 final, cemented the Leafs historic comeback from being three games down to Detroit to win game 7.

But how many can recall the Leaf who scored the Cup-winning goal in 1967?

Officially, the goal was given to forward Jim Pappin, who skated on a line with Bob Pulford and Pete Stemkowski. But there is more to the story.

More than a half century after the '67 Cup win, videotape evidence shows that someone else may have scored the goal. And looking at a replay, one can understand why Stemkowski thinks he may have scored the goal.


The play began when Pulford sent a pass up the middle of the ice to Pappin, who then fed the puck to Stemkowski. Once inside the Canadiens blueline, Stemkowski dropped the puck to Pappin and headed to the front of the net. Pappin went wide towards the left boards and made a backhand pass towards the net, where Stemkowski was tangled up with defenceman Terry Harper.


As the above screen-grabs show, Pappin's pass appears to go straight to Stemkowski and the puck doesn't change direction until it hits his leg or right skate. Also, Stemkowski seems to have gained a territorial advantage over Harper, thus allowing himself to be in-line with the puck. Bill Hewitt, calling the play-by-play, identified Stemkowski as the goal scorer.

"I didn't even know whether I touched it," Stemkowski told me in an interview. "The defenceman with me was Terry Harper. It happened so quickly."

Also, the video shows referee John Ashley talking to Stemkowski after the goal celebration. Stemkowski is seen shrugging his shoulders after his discussion with Ashley. The veteran ref asked Stemkowski if the goal was his. He shared his reply to Ashley with me, "I'm not sure, I don't think so."

There was a reason Stemkowski was hesitant to come right out and take credit for the goal. He knew Pappin was up for a bonus if he led all goal scorers in the playoffs. And Habs captain, Jean Beliveau, was nipping at his heels. Also, he was aware that his teammate was having a swimming pool installed in the summer. A newspaper story the next day quoted Stemkowski as saying, "Pappy wanted to beat out Beliveau. I told the referee the puck hit Laperriere." In fact it was Terry Harper who was engaged with Stemkowski.

When the dust settled, Stemkowski got credit for the Leafs second tally at the 19:24 mark of the second period. For the goal to go Stemkowski, someone witnessed or strongly felt the puck hit his body prior to getting past Montreal goalie Gump Worsley. It gave the Leafs a 2-0 lead heading into the final frame of regulation time. In the third period, Dick Duff pulled Montreal to within one goal of his former team. George Armstrong's empty net goal at the 19:13 mark gave Toronto a 3-1 margin which they held onto to win the Cup.

Shortly after Armstrong's goal, the Gardens crowd was made aware of a correction on Toronto's second goal. It was changed from Stemkowski to Pappin. Obviously, between the time the goal was scored and the time of the correction, further consideration was given to Stemkowski's reluctance to claim that the puck hit him.

I asked Stemkowski how he felt about the change. "I had no emotion at all. I was just happy to win because if we didn't it meant a trip to Montreal for game 7 and we didn't want to go back to Montreal."

If only there was video assistance (with increased tv camera angles/Net Cam and tools to enhance an image) back in 1967 to help the official scorer with his task. The fact a player wanted to help a teammate earn a bonus wouldn't be part of the equation. Then, there is the question of conclusive evidence - Pappy or Stemmer?





2 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Makes one wonder how valid any of our historical data really is; nevertheless, this adds an interesting twist to an historic game. Thanks for surfacing it, Jim. [hope my spelling is a tad better this time around]

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.