An open letter to the NHL : Your embellishing policy makes no sense.
https://www.linkedin.com/...hockey-league-gary-frisch
Dear National Hockey League,
I have been an avid hockey fan for 34 years. I was also an English major in college, and make a living in a career heavily reliant on writing and the use of language.
You recently fined Cal Clutterbuck of the N.Y. Islanders for his second embellishment penalty, as you’ve done with a handful of players this season. In Clutterbuck’s case, Jakub Voracek of the Flyers also received a hooking call on the play.
Now, I’m all in favor of having an embellishment penalty. Although overreacting with the express goal of drawing a penalty is a grand tradition in hockey, it is dishonest and delays the game, and there’s clearly a need to crack down on players who do it.
But I think you’re taking this whole embellishment thing a little too far, and here’s why. An embellishing penalty must be mutually exclusive of any other penalty to an opposing player on that same play. This is by definition. How can you say a player is “embellishing” when, you’re officially declaring that the other player in fact hooked, tripped, slashed or high-sticked Player A?
This makes zero sense. Nada. It is intellectually flawed. It is like claiming a Mobius Strip has two sides. If your ref is going to call a hook, he cannot turn around and say the violated player exaggerated his reaction. Why not? Because by doing so he’s agreeing that Player A has, in fact, been violated. And if the referee truly believes Player A is overreacting, then he cannot properly call Player B for an offense that created a “false” reaction. On the other hand, if the referee falls for that overreaction, then he should penalize Player B, rightfully or not, and in doing so can’t claim that Player A’s response was overblown.
By penalizing both players, it’s like the referee is saying, “I don’t for one minute believe you were hooked/slashed/tripped that badly, but I’ll give the offender the penalty anyway.” That’s just idiotic.
The same thought process applies even if you claim that the embellisher is completely hamming up his reaction. If he is, then, yes, he is obviously trying to draw a penalty on the opposing player. But by assessing that hooking or slashing penalty, the referee is publicly acknowledging that the actor’s performance worked. Again, that just makes the referee – and by extension, you, the league – look stupid.
So have your referees continue to give out penalties for clear cases of embellishment, but don’t hedge your bet by saying that there was a legitimate penalty that drew that response. You can’t have it both ways.
Sincerely,
Gary Frisch
so the shame file probably isn't as full as it should be.
