How can I describe it...... It was kind of like the referee's didn't want to give a disputable edge to either team in a valuable game four so they handed Carter a diving penalty as well. There were tons of four on four opportunities last game if you look at the box score.
i hope he doesn't turn out to be like jealous oiler fans.
You would be so lucky to have Carter emulate the way Gretzky played (And dived fairly often).
__________________
DD only signs in Edmonton if he is a big fan of losing. The image that the Oilers are an up and coming team is dead. - WingedWheel1987
The unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for diving is the single dumbest rule in the sport. The double-minor for high-sticking comes in a distant second, but second nonetheless.
The unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for diving is the single dumbest rule in the sport. The double-minor for high-sticking comes in a distant second, but second nonetheless.
Now how exactly would you say that? I would have to agree the double-minor is way more stupid because all depends how your blade hit them not how intentional or how hard or anything.
But I'm assuming you enjoy watching players dive? You might be interrested in the sport of "Diving" believe it or not
It's called don't call a penalty when the other guy dived. If he wants to flop around and take himself out of the play, do it. Shouldn't be a penalty. But then agian, that's asking to much from a ref.
I'd almost involuntarily contort my tongue in various shapes and force air through my larnyx, probably using a British accent and including a whole bunch of "What's all this now?" comments at the end to spruce it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil3rs
I would have to agree the double-minor is way more stupid because all depends how your blade hit them not how intentional or how hard or anything.
It's dumb 1) because it requires the referee to judge intent, and 2) it implies that two infractions have occurred. I'd prefer that the NHL simply use the major penalty more. If the league wants to force it's referees to judge intent, they should make it as simple as possible for them. It's not that they're unintelligent, rather that they have enough going on already and should be unemotional enforcers of the rules as much as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxtang
It's called don't call a penalty when the other guy dived.
You're like Lenin to the Communists, paxtang. This really shouldn't be a revolutionary thought, but it's such a silly rule that it's exactly what it ends up being. It's a "feel good" rule, intended to make us feel better morally when we tuck our little ones in at night. Or something like that. Hockey is athletic competition, not a morality contest.
I honestly have to get going, or the missus is going to tan my hide. I'll get into my diving diatribe when I return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil3rs
But I'm assuming you enjoy watching players dive? You might be interrested in the sport of "Diving" believe it or not
Should I assume you like little blonde boys because you have a cartoon representation of one in your avatar? I don't see what you're getting at here.
I'd almost involuntarily contort my tongue in various shapes and force air through my larnyx, probably using a British accent and including a whole bunch of "What's all this now?" comments at the end to spruce it up.
It's dumb 1) because it requires the referee to judge intent, and 2) it implies that two infractions have occurred. I'd prefer that the NHL simply use the major penalty more. If the league wants to force it's referees to judge intent, they should make it as simple as possible for them. It's not that they're unintelligent, rather that they have enough going on already and should be unemotional enforcers of the rules as much as possible.
You're like Lenin to the Communists, paxtang. This really shouldn't be a revolutionary thought, but it's such a silly rule that it's exactly what it ends up being. It's a "feel good" rule, intended to make us feel better morally when we tuck our little ones in at night. Or something like that. Hockey is athletic competition, not a morality contest.
I honestly have to get going, or the missus is going to tan my hide. I'll get into my diving diatribe when I return.
Should I assume you like little blonde boys because you have a cartoon representation of one in your avatar? I don't see what you're getting at here.
So you're saying you just want them to call no penalty if there's a dive? Believe it or not there are many penalties called against guys because another player dove. Now if there's no chance of them getting a penalty for diving, they'll continue to do it more, because they know that they have nothing to lose (there's no chance of a penalty called against them) and they can draw a penalty. Now it's safe to assume that if you still dislike the penalty, that you should visit your local swimming pool and find out when there are some diving competitions you can watch.
So you're saying you just want them to call no penalty if there's a dive? Believe it or not there are many penalties called against guys because another player dove. Now if there's no chance of them getting a penalty for diving, they'll continue to do it more, because they know that they have nothing to lose (there's no chance of a penalty called against them) and they can draw a penalty. Now it's safe to assume that if you still dislike the penalty, that you should visit your local swimming pool and find out when there are some diving competitions you can watch.
But if there's no penalty called on the infraction (or lack thereof) that prompted the dive, then there's nothing to gain. And if the other team can take over control of the puck (or continue attack), with the player who took the dive way out of position, then there's a 3-on-2, 4-on-3, or 5-on-4 somewhere. If the team scores, that guy's gonna take a few shifts off (assuming the coach is worth anything). I'd say that's a good reason not to dive.
So you're saying you just want them to call no penalty if there's a dive?
You're quite astute. It appears that I have done that abundantly in this thread, yes.
Quote:
Believe it or not there are many penalties called against guys because another player dove.
When this occurs, the problem is with the referees, not the players.
Quote:
Now if there's no chance of them getting a penalty for diving, they'll continue to do it more, because they know that they have nothing to lose (there's no chance of a penalty called against them) and they can draw a penalty.
So says you. Players tend to move a lot slower around the ice on their bellies or backsides instead of on skates. I don't think intentionally falling all over the ice and moving one's self out of position produces a lot of goals for one's team.
Quote:
Now it's safe to assume that if you still dislike the penalty, that you should visit your local swimming pool and find out when there are some diving competitions you can watch.
So you're saying you just want them to call no penalty if there's a dive? Believe it or not there are many penalties called against guys because another player dove. Now if there's no chance of them getting a penalty for diving, they'll continue to do it more, because they know that they have nothing to lose (there's no chance of a penalty called against them) and they can draw a penalty. Now it's safe to assume that if you still dislike the penalty, that you should visit your local swimming pool and find out when there are some diving competitions you can watch.
I have no problem with the diving rule. BUT you cannot call it both ways. you cant give a diving penalty to one player and a say a hooking player to a player who hooked him. its one or the other, not both. As far as the double minor high sticking call what do you do if the player draws blood? I know quite often this is given a 5 minute major in the AHL. maybe thats what the call should be. 2 minutes high sticking or 5 minutes high sticking that for draws blood.
Then there is the instigator rule. this is the most single most retarted penalty in all of hockey. Get rid of the instigator, let the players police themselves again and all this cheapcrap will come to an end.
I have no problem with the diving rule. BUT you cannot call it both ways. you cant give a diving penalty to one player and a say a hooking player to a player who hooked him. its one or the other, not both.
I can see how they could both be called. One player hooked another who embellished the fall, or went down too easily. If someone skates up to you grabs your stick and then falls to the ice, then sure, calling penalties on both players is silly. One guy falling when he feels he is getting hooked doesnt absolve the other guy that was hooking him in the first place.
I can see how they could both be called. One player hooked another who embellished the fall, or went down too easily. If someone skates up to you grabs your stick and then falls to the ice, then sure, calling penalties on both players is silly. One guy falling when he feels he is getting hooked doesnt absolve the other guy that was hooking him in the first place.
yeah i see what your saying. Its just that this has allways frustrated me because in my opinion the dive getting called when a hook is being called is purely a judgement call.
When I saw this topic I thought it ment like talent wise Carter dived which made no sense.
even non-diving players get diving penalties, especially in the playoffs when they don't want to give a team a penalty but it was a blatent hook/trip or whatever.
I think diving needs to be curbed in some fashion but the current rules regarding it don't do anything since the original penalty is called as well.
There's no risk to diving still, you dive and either get a penalty called against the other team so Powerplay for your team(gain)
or you and the other guy get a minor each(even strength no risk)
at least the Don't call it option would instill some kind of risk in diving.
