GDT: Bolts at Canes

[Agalloch]

Habs fan coming in peace. I hope you guys make the playoffs !

 

[RodTheBawd]

Habs fan coming in peace. I hope you guys make the playoffs !

I hope you don't!

 

[Finnish Jerk Train]

I was there, and I miss a lot without the benefit of replay. So the only thing I'll say about the officiating is you have to call embellishment both ways. Paquette acted like he had been shot as soon as he saw Hamilton's elbow in the vicinity of his face. You can't call Foegele for diving after ignoring that.

That's not what cost us the game, though. For two periods, we did what we needed to do to take care of business against one of the best teams that has ever played. We came off it in the third and had a predictable result. Simple as that. You can't afford to make mistakes against them and we just made too many.

 

[HisIceness]

Habs fan coming in peace. I hope you guys make the playoffs !

I like your attitude sir!

 

[Joe McGrath]

That embellishment rule needs to be rewritten. Way too much latitude for refs to call it for one player but not for another.

How do you re-write in the McLovin situation. The ref blew the original call because he wasn’t tripped other than by his own two feet and then tried to fix it with an embellishment call. You can’t re-write for stupid/blind.

 

[MinJaBen]

How do you re-write in the McLovin situation. The ref blew the original call because he wasn’t tripped other than by his own two feet and then tried to fix it with an embellishment call. You can’t re-write for stupid/blind.

The rule needs to be scrapped. But if they aren't going to do that, there needs to be something in the rule that limits the embellishment call to only being valid if there is not a corresponding penalty. You either were tripped, hacked, interfered with, or you are faking it. It shouldn't be both.

64.1 Diving / Embellishment – Any player who blatantly dives, embellishes a fall or a reaction, or who feigns an injury shall be penalized with a minor penalty under this rule.

A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for diving/embellishment.

 

[Joe McGrath]

The rule needs to be scrapped. But if they aren't going to do that, there needs to be something in the rule that limits the embellishment call to only being valid if there is not a corresponding penalty. You either were tripped, hacked, interfered with, or you are faking it. It shouldn't be both.

​

You realize you can hold or hook a guy and there also be a dive associated with that, right? It’s still a penalty. Maybe they wouldn’t have called it if the guy didn’t dive but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a penalty. If they couldn’t call the associated penalty they’d never call an embellishment penalty. It’s not like they don’t have the discretion to now.

 

[backwards motion]

I know it's always kind of sour when the team loses. And I'm not gonna rub salt on my wounds, because this wasn't bad game at all. Tampa does this to teams. So eventhough we need points, this kinda game isn't that easy. We can have our mourning period, but not a lot of teams can hang with Tampa like Carolina did.

 

[MinJaBen]

You realize you can hold or hook a guy and there also be a dive associated with that, right?

A "dive", as far as I'm concerned, is an attempt to draw a call where no call should have been made. So, no, I don't accept that you can trip (or hook or hold or whatever) a guy and the guy can also be diving.

 

[Agalloch]

I hope you don't!

I hope the Blue Jackets don't make it !

 

[Joe McGrath]

A "dive", as far as I'm concerned, is an attempt to draw a call where no call should have been made. So, no, I don't accept that you can trip (or hook or hold or whatever) a guy and the guy can also be diving.

So you can hook a guy all the way down the ice as long as he remains standing and not have it be a penalty? You can very easily hook a guy plenty for it to be a penalty and then have the player not realize a call is coming and flop like a dead fish. That’s the definition of embellishing to get a call. That happens all the time.

 

[MinJaBen]

So you can hook a guy all the way down the ice as long as he remains standing and not have it be a penalty? You can very easily hook a guy plenty for it to be a penalty and then have the player not realize a call is coming and flop like a dead fish. That’s the definition of embellishing to get a call. That happens all the time.

What? I'm not sure I said anything like that, and the rule certainly doesn't require the guy to fall to the ice:

55.1 Hooking - Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that
enables a player to restrain an opponent.

And again, I am not in favor of any theatrics, but I think diving vs embellishment/theatrics are two different things requiring different actions. Diving is the intentional attempt to draw a penalty that didn't happen and should be penalized only if no penalty is called. Embellishment or theatrics is something I would define as a guy overreacting to a called penalty (even if before the call happens) and I wouldn't penalize that. I'd call the guy out as a fool or a whiner or whatever, but it wouldn't be a penalty because he is reacting to a penalty that was called.

 

[Joe McGrath]

What? I'm not sure I said anything like that, and the rule certainly doesn't require the guy to fall to the ice:

​

And again, I am not in favor of any theatrics, but I think diving vs embellishment/theatrics are two different things requiring different actions. Diving is the intentional attempt to draw a penalty that didn't happen and should be penalized only if no penalty is called. Embellishment or theatrics is something I would define as a guy overreacting to a called penalty (even if before the call happens) and I wouldn't penalize that. I'd call the guy out as a fool or a whiner or whatever, but it wouldn't be a penalty because he is reacting to a penalty that was called.

I think I understand your position better now. I disagree with it still but whatever.

 

[bleedgreen]

The rule needs to be scrapped. But if they aren't going to do that, there needs to be something in the rule that limits the embellishment call to only being valid if there is not a corresponding penalty. You either were tripped, hacked, interfered with, or you are faking it. It shouldn't be both.

​

I disagree. You can be tripped and then still make it look really good for everyone even though you don’t have to. Or someone can technically have a stick between your legs, and then you launch yourself in the air. The ref feels obligated to call the trip because the stick was there and made contact and he can’t really know for sure there wasn’t anything actually involved in the fall but he knows the player launched himself in the air.

Ive never understood the “it’s gotta be one call or the other - not both” concept. I reffed quite a bit and felt absolutely obligated to call both at the same time pretty often. Usually with the teenagers, the games out of control so I’m calling everything, then every time there’s the smallest tug of a hook throwing themselves on the ice. f*** that. You’re both going.

 

[Svechhammer]

I hate how it was ruled last night, but dammit. If you're going to call diving, it should override any attempt at an offsetting foul. You can't call tripping or hooking and then a dive. Its either a trip/hook or the guy dove. One or the other.

Teams won't dive nearly as often if they're the ones on the PK when it happens. As it is now, the worst that will happen is a 4 on 4, so there is no disincentive to embellish.

 

[RodTheBawd]

I hate how it was ruled last night, but dammit. If you're going to call diving, it should override any attempt at an offsetting foul. You can't call tripping or hooking and then a dive. Its either a trip/hook or the guy dove. One or the other.

Teams won't dive nearly as often if they're the ones on the PK when it happens. As it is now, the worst that will happen is a 4 on 4, so there is no disincentive to embellish.

Because it wasn't a called a dive, it was called embellishment. It gets back to Minja's point that they are 2 distinct actions and have to be looked at separately; the problem is it's really damn difficult for a ref to do that in real time.

 

[Svechhammer]

Because it wasn't a called a dive, it was called embellishment. It gets back to Minja's point that they are 2 distinct actions and have to be looked at separately; the problem is it's really damn difficult for a ref to do that in real time.

What I would say is that while I agree there is a distinction between the two in reality, I don't think there should be a difference in how they are policed by the refs. Both are an action with intent to fool the refs into thinking something that happened where it did not. Even if you're just exaggerating how severe a hit was, your intent is to fool the refs into seeing more severity than there was.

In both cases, I would say put the offender in the box for 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct and put the opponent on the PP. You take a hard line like that where teams are penalized immediately, you eventually take it out of the game. Much like the hit to the head ruling in college football where everything was an ejection for a little while, the end result was that kind of play eliminated almost overnight.

 

[RodTheBawd]

What I would say is that while I agree there is a distinction between the two in reality, I don't think there should be a difference in how they are policed by the refs. Both are an action with intent to fool the refs into thinking something that happened where it did not. Even if you're just exaggerating how severe a hit was, your intent is to fool the refs into seeing more severity than there was.

In both cases, I would say put the offender in the box for 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct and put the opponent on the PP. You take a hard line like that where teams are penalized immediately, you eventually take it out of the game. Much like the hit to the head ruling in college football where everything was an ejection for a little while, the end result was that kind of play eliminated almost overnight.

So even if the other team commits a penalty, if you attempt to make it worse, the original penalty is voided? Feels like that shifts the burden on the refs too far in the other direction. I'd rather the "real" penalty get called and the occasional dive/embellishment come into play, than a ref thinking a guy embellished because he didn't see the extent of the actual penalty and the initial offender get off free.

 

[MinJaBen]

I disagree. You can be tripped and then still make it look really good for everyone even though you don’t have to. Or someone can technically have a stick between your legs, and then you launch yourself in the air. The ref feels obligated to call the trip because the stick was there and made contact and he can’t really know for sure there wasn’t anything actually involved in the fall but he knows the player launched himself in the air.

Ive never understood the “it’s gotta be one call or the other - not both” concept. I reffed quite a bit and felt absolutely obligated to call both at the same time pretty often. Usually with the teenagers, the games out of control so I’m calling everything, then every time there’s the smallest tug of a hook throwing themselves on the ice. **** that. You’re both going.

I'm sure being a ref is hard...I've never done it. But what you are saying seems like lazy reffing to me. Sounds a lot like the "kill them all and let God sort it out" type of mentality to me.

 

[A Star is Burns]

I think calling both can be overused, but there can certainly be an actual penalty that is embellished to the point of embarrassment. I don't mind selling it a little to make sure it's called, but it can certainly be taken over the top to the point that it warrants a penalty. That doesn't meant he hook or trip or whatever didn't happen. Makes perfect sense to call both.

 

[Svechhammer]

So even if the other team commits a penalty, if you attempt to make it worse, the original penalty is voided?

Yep. You want to be serious about taking it out of the game, that's how you do it. Make it so the penalty for embellishment/diving is so harsh that its not worth putting yourself in the position to get called for it.

 

[bleedgreen]

I'm sure being a ref is hard...I've never done it. But what you are saying seems like lazy reffing to me. Sounds a lot like the "kill them all and let God sort it out" type of mentality to me.

Sounds like you want one person to be blamed for two people being wrong.

Refs don't want to reward anyone for doing something wrong.

 

[My Special Purpose]

So, we need to "clarify" the current penalty to separate diving and embellishment into two separate penalties, based on two separate -- and almost completely impossible to discern at game speed -- actions? Yeah, NHL refs don't have enough discretion to make crap up as it is, we need to toss that in there.

 

[wisssh]

Mr. official from last night # 17

17

L'Ecuyer, Frederick

41

St-Tite, QC

CAN

10/13/07

626

11

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Lives and plays beer league locally in Raleigh.

If I recall it was Rooney making the calls driving everyone crazy

 

[raynman]

I’m honestly surprised Foegelle hasn’t been called for embellishment more often. Whenever something is close he looks like the younger brother who knows his mom is about to look over.