View Single Post
Old
03-18-2011, 10:29 AM
  #64
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
I mean, that's really what it is. If it's egregious, it's a dive and its own penalty. If they call it embellishment they call both.

You're not really talking about anything changing.

@Jester - maybe for the embellishment, it becomes a double minor or something? My problem with an embellishment voiding the original penalty is that if there were a penalty there, it should be called.

I think the diving/embellishing has gotten bad enough where just the stigma isn't deterring anything...maybe if you embellish a call, you get a double minor so that way both penalties can be called but you still kill a PP? And a dive on its own is still a double minor, 'cause the embellishment can't be worse than the dive.

4 minutes is probably too steep, but I think that's the only 'fair' way to treat the situation where there's two penalties. And I guarantee you'd see people cut it out if they knew they'd get a double minor for acting like a clown.
I mean, giving a double minor against a single minor is essentially the same thing as just voiding the tripping, hooking, etc. infraction. So, whatever floats your boat, really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I'm saying that the NHL can define them however they would like in order to clarify the difference... They can use whatever language they would like.
Right, but I'm saying there isn't really a difference as the language is currently used. "Embellishment" is an umbrella term which includes the act of diving. If you want to make a distinction between the two going forward, that's fine... but I don't really see the distinction as having real value.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote