HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Flyers diving is out of control

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-18-2011, 09:42 AM
  #51
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Worst thing about diving in the NHL is when they call both penalties. Not that it can't happen that there is a dive and a penalty, but in the last few years I have only seen a handful of diving get called on its own. Which is what I think part of the problem is. If the refs called diving every time they saw it and not just the worst of the worst, the dives will become less frequent. In theory, anyway.
I'd rather they call both than miss the dive.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 09:51 AM
  #52
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I'd rather they call both than miss the dive.
There should be an actual penalty for embellishing/diving, though... agree with DFF there. As of now, there's no real downside to diving. Worst case scenario you get called for it, and you end up with a 4 on 4. Now, there is real downside in the bigger picture as you get a rep for diving and then don't get calls you might otherwise get (this happened to Crosby as much as Pens fans might not like to think about it)... and it certainly has been the case with Briere throughout his tenure here. I think you see it with Carcillo some, but I don't know if that's because of diving or the fact that he's an ***hole to the refs.

If getting busted for diving resulted in a PP against... we'd be looking at a different situation on the ice, and a lot less diving. Of course, refs would have to be willing to call it... which is another factor. Far more often than not, they simply don't make the call.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:00 AM
  #53
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
There should be an actual penalty for embellishing/diving, though... agree with DFF there. As of now, there's no real downside to diving. Worst case scenario you get called for it, and you end up with a 4 on 4. Now, there is real downside in the bigger picture as you get a rep for diving and then don't get calls you might otherwise get (this happened to Crosby as much as Pens fans might not like to think about it)... and it certainly has been the case with Briere throughout his tenure here. I think you see it with Carcillo some, but I don't know if that's because of diving or the fact that he's an ***hole to the refs.

If getting busted for diving resulted in a PP against... we'd be looking at a different situation on the ice, and a lot less diving. Of course, refs would have to be willing to call it... which is another factor. Far more often than not, they simply don't make the call.
I mean....there IS a clearly defined penalty. This issue is it isn't called by itself often enough.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:02 AM
  #54
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
There should be an actual penalty for embellishing/diving, though... agree with DFF there. As of now, there's no real downside to diving. Worst case scenario you get called for it, and you end up with a 4 on 4. Now, there is real downside in the bigger picture as you get a rep for diving and then don't get calls you might otherwise get (this happened to Crosby as much as Pens fans might not like to think about it)... and it certainly has been the case with Briere throughout his tenure here. I think you see it with Carcillo some, but I don't know if that's because of diving or the fact that he's an ***hole to the refs.

If getting busted for diving resulted in a PP against... we'd be looking at a different situation on the ice, and a lot less diving. Of course, refs would have to be willing to call it... which is another factor. Far more often than not, they simply don't make the call.
That about sums it up.

Unless the league starts cracking down on every dive and embellishment, it'll continue to be a joke. The odds that you'll just get called for the embellishment are slim to none, so people are always going to do it.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:05 AM
  #55
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I mean....there IS a clearly defined penalty. This issue is it isn't called by itself often enough.
Right, but when a player dives there is usually another infraction in play as well... thus the 4 on 4. What if the clearly defined penalty stipulated that the trip, hook, whatever, didn't matter and got voided? What I'm noting is that there's no real negative consequence in the moment for a player to dive... it's all incentive.

Now, this would bring about a whole new level of ****ing from fans, and refs would probably be a bit gun shy about calling it... but that would have a material impact on diving.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:12 AM
  #56
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
I think a "dive" and "embellishment" should be defined differently, and carry separate penalties.

A dive implies that there really was no action to cause the reaction from the player that is diving.... Meaning that no penalty was committed in the first place, so the dive was the only real penalty... Diving player receives 2 minutes.

An embellishment means that the reaction to a penalty was enhanced, result should be a 4 on 4.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:13 AM
  #57
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I'd rather they call both than miss the dive.
On top of that, I think diving should only be called on concurring penalties, not a lone diving call. Otherwise, the player is just flailing around and looking like a jack ass. And in Briere's case, if got up and into the play, even though there was no call.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:20 AM
  #58
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I think a "dive" and "embellishment" should be defined differently, and carry separate penalties.

A dive implies that there really was no action to cause the reaction from the player that is diving.... Meaning that no penalty was committed in the first place, so the dive was the only real penalty... Diving player receives 2 minutes.

An embellishment means that the reaction to a penalty was enhanced, result should be a 4 on 4.
Well, dive derives from guys taking the fall... where as embellishing can be anything from taking a fall to throwing your head back. They're more interchangeable than two entirely distinct things.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:21 AM
  #59
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I think a "dive" and "embellishment" should be defined differently, and carry separate penalties.

A dive implies that there really was no action to cause the reaction from the player that is diving.... Meaning that no penalty was committed in the first place, so the dive was the only real penalty... Diving player receives 2 minutes.

An embellishment means that the reaction to a penalty was enhanced, result should be a 4 on 4.
See, I disagree. Embellishing doesn't ALWAYS mean something actually happened. People fake getting high sticked/slashed all the time. It's a same thing. Pretend you were tripped = dive. Pretend you were high sticked/slashed = embellished. In both cases NOTHING actually happened.

Diving and embellishing are both done to make it appear as if something has happened. Sometimes to make an actual action seem worse than it was, or sometimes completely pretending that something happened; and a dive or an embellishment can be applied to each case.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:22 AM
  #60
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I think a "dive" and "embellishment" should be defined differently, and carry separate penalties.

A dive implies that there really was no action to cause the reaction from the player that is diving.... Meaning that no penalty was committed in the first place, so the dive was the only real penalty... Diving player receives 2 minutes.

An embellishment means that the reaction to a penalty was enhanced, result should be a 4 on 4.
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.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:24 AM
  #61
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnight View Post
On top of that, I think diving should only be called on concurring penalties, not a lone diving call. Otherwise, the player is just flailing around and looking like a jack ass. And in Briere's case, if got up and into the play, even though there was no call.
I'm not sure I follow. If you never call the "lone diving call" you are going to have more "flailing around" of players. As Jester pointed out, there is ZERO downside to diving if they never call the "lone diving call".

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:25 AM
  #62
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, dive derives from guys taking the fall... where as embellishing can be anything from taking a fall to throwing your head back. They're more interchangeable than two entirely distinct things.
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.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:25 AM
  #63
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I think a "dive" and "embellishment" should be defined differently, and carry separate penalties.

A dive implies that there really was no action to cause the reaction from the player that is diving.... Meaning that no penalty was committed in the first place, so the dive was the only real penalty... Diving player receives 2 minutes.

An embellishment means that the reaction to a penalty was enhanced, result should be a 4 on 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
See, I disagree. Embellishing doesn't ALWAYS mean something actually happened. People fake getting high sticked/slashed all the time. It's a same thing. Pretend you were tripped = dive. Pretend you were high sticked/slashed = embellished. In both cases NOTHING actually happened.

Diving and embellishing are both done to make it appear as if something has happened. Sometimes to make an actual action seem worse than it was, or sometimes completely pretending that something happened; and a dive or an embellishment can be applied to each case.
Wait, quoting myself now.

I misread your argument. I see what you were saying.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
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
Old
03-18-2011, 10:30 AM
  #65
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Wait, quoting myself now.

I misread your argument. I see what you were saying.
But, I guess we could look at the NFL for problems/benefits that could arise from having different levels of penalties for like actions....

The face mask penalties from the NFL are a good example. They went from 5 or 15 yards depending on the level of the infraction to just making them all 15 yards.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:31 AM
  #66
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
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.



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.
I think if the two were clearly defined, the threat of the more severe call would keep players from committing the lesser of the two infractions.....

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:33 AM
  #67
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I think if the two were clearly defined, the threat of the more severe call would keep players from committing the lesser of the two infractions.....
Why is one lesser than the other, though? I have just as much of a problem with Carcillo kicking his head back on a phantom high stick as I do with a player going superman the minute he feels a hook being applied.

The problem isn't that there isn't a distinction between the two, it's that as the sport is currently officiated there is zero disincentive to embellish/dive/whatever.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:36 AM
  #68
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
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.



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.
Well, I have a problem with the player who slashed/tripped/whatever not getting any time for it. Embellishment happens when a penalty actually occurs; that penalty needs to be assessed. Also, if you just void that player's penalty, are you allowed to then send them out on the ensuing PP? That's kind of sensitive, though there's no real easy solution to that with the double minor idea either. Unless you just say that player isn't allowed to play during the PP, but that could be a hassle to worry about.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:37 AM
  #69
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I think if the two were clearly defined, the threat of the more severe call would keep players from committing the lesser of the two infractions.....
The two are pretty clear in the rules...there's really no question about what constitutes a dive or an embellishment. The problem is just in the officiating; refs don't want to call a dive only. If they call both it just makes it easier for them to avoid catching flak for a tough decision...therefore players always embellish.

Distinguishing them doesn't do anything; punishing them is the only thing that will.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:38 AM
  #70
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
Well, I have a problem with the player who slashed/tripped/whatever not getting any time for it. Embellishment happens when a penalty actually occurs; that penalty needs to be assessed. Also, if you just void that player's penalty, are you allowed to then send them out on the ensuing PP? That's kind of sensitive, though there's no real easy solution to that with the double minor idea either. Unless you just say that player isn't allowed to play during the PP, but that could be a hassle to worry about.
So, sure, just do a double and a single if you want to make sure that everyone who did something wrong gets a penalty. I don't really care, but until they make it so that diving has negative impact for the team, it isn't going to go away.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:39 AM
  #71
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Jester;31748282]Why is one lesser than the other, though? I have just as much of a problem with Carcillo kicking his head back on a phantom high stick as I do with a player going superman the minute he feels a hook being applied.


I'm also starting to think that this could all be avoided if the games were officiated with a higher level of competency. If the calls were made, players wouldn't feel the need to embellish.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:41 AM
  #72
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
The two are pretty clear in the rules...there's really no question about what constitutes a dive or an embellishment. The problem is just in the officiating; refs don't want to call a dive only. If they call both it just makes it easier for them to avoid catching flak for a tough decision...therefore players always embellish.

Distinguishing them doesn't do anything; punishing them is the only thing that will.
By "distinction" I meant to carry increasing levels of punishment.... The two may be technically defined by the league, but if the penalties are the same than the two are not really separately defined.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:43 AM
  #73
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Well, a punch doesn't need to look like a titanic right cross from Tyson to hurt.

edit:

That's a blatant dive. What happened to Leino is much murkier.
This is why I am not a Carcillo fan in general. He makes some good moves and can fight, but I generally do not like him. I do not respect the pest type of hockey, but I see the use in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyersfan139 View Post
Meh whatever all teams have divers. If you want it to stop the NHL should start punishing it more harshly but it is hard to call.

Blatant dives like the Carcillo one posted in this thread should be suspendable imo.
Agreed. That destroys the integrity of the game Avery-style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M0NTY26 View Post
He looks like a soccer player throwing his arms up in the air like that, trying to draw attention and a penalty... a.k.a. diving.
Soccer is rough though, balancing, trying to outrun someone, while controlling a ball, it's pretty intense, and the other guy is constantly trying to trip and tackle you. A lot of the time the players go down easily, sure, but with soccer I think the problem is the embellishment more so then the diving. WHEN they go down, they act like they broke a leg. Save it for when you are actually hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan187 View Post
It sorta makes it hard for us to talk crap on the penguins with their diving now because the flyers dive so much now. Briere, Leino and Carcillo are terrible with that. Leinos are the worst though because you can just throws his arms all over every time. I think Carcillo does it just to try and make the other team mad half the time then laugh in their face if it gets called.
Exactly, we call out other teams for diving all the time, I expect my team to play Broad Street hockey. Tough, physical, and punishing, but not diving. **** that.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:43 AM
  #74
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
'm also starting to think that this could all be avoided if the games were officiated with a higher level of competency. If the calls were made, players wouldn't feel the need to embellish.
...no. There's too much of a gain to be made by drawing a call on the other team. Officials could be perfect and guys would still go down. The problem isn't the good/bad of the officiating, it's the clear gamesmanship justification for diving.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2011, 10:45 AM
  #75
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...no. There's too much of a gain to be made by drawing a call on the other team. Officials could be perfect and guys would still go down. The problem isn't the good/bad of the officiating, it's the clear gamesmanship justification for diving.
Id agree that its a mix of both.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.