I get that, but with the league office recinding some of these calls would your info not be more accurate to list those who actually did "dive" and it was confirmed after review, otherwise, what you have posted is suspect at best.
- TheDen

There's no list available, perhaps they should remove those from the boxscores of they've been rescinded. The list of actual divers would increase if every one was called; I would imagine we've all seen some pretty good flops go un-penalized. I know I've seen some Sharks hit the deck with exaggeration without getting a penalty. These are just what comes from the boxscores.

A lot of my least favorite players in the league are on this list.

Yes, I would have thought Vancouver would lead the way.
- jmatchett383

A coupe short years ago they would have, they have gotten better, especially by shipping off their dive king Kesler.

Your info is not accurate, Marchand was advised by the NHL office that both of his embellishment calls had been recinded after leaque review. Murphy made this statement to Marchand directly during a taping of Behind the Bs when he and two other Bruins were visiting the league office in Toronto.
- TheDen

Marchand is a cheap shot and a diver. Always has been since day 1. Don't get butt hurt when he gets called for it. That's cute that Murph told him that to make him feel better, he is a sensitive little poop head.

I don't think NHL discipline is necessarily that related to on ice calls. Plenty of embellishment calls I've seen were questionable at best; and lots of obvious dives have been gotten away with. With that in mind, there are too few calls to balance for that in order to brand teams, divisions, or individuals using penalties as your metric.
- Antilles

The two on Malkin were an absolute farce. It was the ref not wanting to take a player from the other side in an otherwise competitive game. It was laughable.

Marchand is a cheap shot and a diver. Always has been since day 1. Don't get butt hurt when he gets called for it. That's cute that Murph told him that to make him feel better, he is a sensitive little poop head.
- mxgsfmdpx

Talk about butt hurt, how is choking joe working out for ya

The two on Malkin were an absolute farce. It was the ref not wanting to take a player from the other side in an otherwise competitive game. It was laughable.
- madmike71

Refs are only human, that is why it is good the league steps in and can and has reversed some of these calls, especially when you take into consideration that fines are put in place after a certain number of infractions. That is why I would like to see an actual list of offenders, and I am certain a list is available from the league for media types.

not surprising about Malkin not being penalized . he wasn't given anything for his elbow on Coutourier or his elbow on Grossman which caused a concussion in the playoffs a couple years ago. Pittsburgh is the dirtiest team in the league. They have the most goons , they lead the league in PIM'S. lead by Downie

I don't think NHL discipline is necessarily that related to on ice calls. Plenty of embellishment calls I've seen were questionable at best; and lots of obvious dives have been gotten away with. With that in mind, there are too few calls to balance for that in order to brand teams, divisions, or individuals using penalties as your metric.
- Antilles

There's no fancy metric. Just actual calls from the boxscores. Players get called for phantom calls on all penalties, and a lot go undetected. This is the list of ones that were deemed penalties by the zebra's, it is what it is. I don't expect Sharks fans to agree that Irwin or Couture are divers and likewise for the rest of the teams fanbases.

There's no fancy metric. Just actual calls from the boxscores. Players get called for phantom calls on all penalties, and a lot go undetected. This is the list of ones that were deemed penalties by the zebra's, it is what it is. I don't expect Sharks fans to agree that Irwin or Couture are divers and likewise for the rest of the teams fanbases.
- Tim Chiasson

Irwin's a diving piece a poop.

Irwin's a diving piece a poop.
- SJSharks39

Talk about butt hurt, how is choking joe working out for ya
- TheDen

Your red herring proves your lack of intelligence... No sense in getting into a pissing contest with a skunk. Good day to you.

The embellishment fines and repeat offenders aren't based on the on-ice calls. Plays are reviewed (both penalized embellishment and non-penalized) and determined by a discipline committee so in the case of Malkin or Marchand, one or more of their embellishment calls were deemed 'not a dive' by the committee.

Per The Hockey News:

Whether or not a referee calls a player for diving or embellishment, it’s completely independent from a later NHL ruling, so the effectiveness of this rule change is completely dependent on the supplemental discipline committee

http://www.thehockeynews....ercoach-fines-for-diving/

There's no fancy metric. Just actual calls from the boxscores. Players get called for phantom calls on all penalties, and a lot go undetected. This is the list of ones that were deemed penalties by the zebra's, it is what it is. I don't expect Sharks fans to agree that Irwin or Couture are divers and likewise for the rest of the teams fanbases.
- Tim Chiasson

Couture is definitely an "embellisher", wouldn't call him a full on diver though; although, he is getting worse and not better about this and somebody better call him out.

Couture is definitely an "embellisher", wouldn't call him a full on diver though; although, he is getting worse and not better about this and somebody better call him out.
- mxgsfmdpx

Looks like you just did.

Couture is definitely an "embellisher", wouldn't call him a full on diver though; although, he is getting worse and not better about this and somebody better call him out.
- mxgsfmdpx

I agree that there is a difference between diving and embellishing. But Couture is indeed one of the worst embellishers in the game.

What I have never understood is embellishment diving calls always are washed with the original call against the other team. How does this make sense? If the player dives or embellishes the penalty then why is there a penalty in the first place? Sure seems if the NHL really wants to get this crap out of the game then shouldn't the "divers" truly be penalized. Now this season may have been different in terms of the offsetting calls but given the NHL's history I have my doubts
- uf1910

It is the unsportsmanlike nature of the embellishment that deserves a penalty. It doesn't mean there wasn't an original penalty. It is possible to have both. Look at the James neal fine for embellishment, he was tripped but he put too much effort to sell the call.

It is the unsportsmanlike nature of the embellishment that deserves a penalty. It doesn't mean there wasn't an original penalty. It is possible to have both. Look at the James neal fine for embellishment, he was tripped but he put too much effort to sell the call.
- habfanforever

I understand there "could" be both, but how often do you NOT see both calls made? I honestly can't remember ever seeing a player called for diving/embellishment without an offsetting call. If a player dives to draw a call how can the other team have committed an infraction if the only reason there was an infraction was b/c the player dove to draw the call? Each situation is different so looking at one Neal fine won't necessarily apply to others. But again I have seen a trend with these calls and even now with the NHL supposedly trying to "crack down" on this type of stuff I have seen little to no change in how the calls get assessed. If they really want to get this crap out of the game then the diving team/player should truly be penalized and put his team down a man vs the current off-setting 4on4 that is made now

Wait, what? The Canucks aren't one of the top diving teams? Woah...mind blown.....not.

Wait, what? The Canucks aren't one of the top diving teams? Woah...mind blown.....not.
- Nucker101

Kesler's gone, so now the Ducks are

I'd rather see a list of the "incidents," not just the calls. There are plenty of calls that weren't dives and plenty of dives that weren't called. I don't know if it would exactly be a wash tho. Its a little misleading when you have a list of divers without names like Kesler, Hossa, and Brown on it.

I'd rather see a list of the "incidents," not just the calls. There are plenty of calls that weren't dives and plenty of dives that weren't called. I don't know if it would exactly be a wash tho. Its a little misleading when you have a list of divers without names like Kesler, Hossa, and Brown on it.
- sniper11

I agree that there is a difference between diving and embellishing. But Couture is indeed one of the worst embellishers in the game.
- Sharks_12

For real. He is cringeworthy on so many plays and it's gotten worse every year. I was glad to see Mike Richards call him out on it by fighting him in the playoffs last year.

I'd rather see a list of the "incidents," not just the calls. There are plenty of calls that weren't dives and plenty of dives that weren't called. I don't know if it would exactly be a wash tho. Its a little misleading when you have a list of divers without names like Kesler, Hossa, and Brown on it.
- sniper11

Not a chance.
How dare you put his name in the same sentence as Kesler and Brown.

Kesler's gone, so now the Ducks are
- mxgsfmdpx

Was also surprised to see Julien's Bruins on that list, he's called out other players for diving multiple times yet his team is near the top of the list...