Paul Stewart: Be Yourself and Let Players -- Within Reason -- Be Themselves

Paul, I don't have a comment about todays blog, but I do have a question. Not sure if you will see it or if you will choose to answer but I will ask anyway.

In the Toronto/Edmonton game this week the ref called a penalty on a Edmonton player and also called kadri for embellishing. I can't understand why, if a penalty is going to be called then just call that penalty. Why does it matter if the player falls down harder then he should have or try's a little too hard to make sure the ref saw the play and infraction.

I can fully understand getting a embellish penalty if there was no infraction that the Ref was going to call a penalty on but the player drops like hit with a cannon. This just embarrassess the Ref when he doesn't call the penalty, with the fallen player trying to make the Ref look stupid or something. But if your going to call a penalty anyway because an infraction took place then why worry if the other player goes down like he was shot..

Paul, I don't have a comment about todays blog, but I do have a question. Not sure if you will see it or if you will choose to answer but I will ask anyway.

In the Toronto/Edmonton game this week the ref called a penalty on a Edmonton player and also called kadri for embellishing. I can't understand why, if a penalty is going to be called then just call that penalty. Why does it matter if the player falls down harder then he should have or try's a little too hard to make sure the ref saw the play and infraction.

I can fully understand getting a embellish penalty if there was no infraction that the Ref was going to call a penalty on but the player drops like hit with a cannon. This just embarrassess the Ref when he doesn't call the penalty, with the fallen player trying to make the Ref look stupid or something. But if your going to call a penalty anyway because an infraction took place then why worry if the other player goes down like he was shot..
- sparky

I'm not Paul, but I'll try to answer this.

Let's say player A legitimately hooks playerB; he uses his stick to try to impede a player. This should be a 2-minute minor for hooking.

However, upon being hooked, player B does a full pirouette on ice followed by a flying Superman impression to "sell" the hook. To me, this is unsportmanlike conduct for embellishment (which does not necessarily mean diving) as well, and should be penalized as such.

I'm not Paul, but I'll try to answer this.

Let's say player A legitimately hooks playerB; he uses his stick to try to impede a player. This should be a 2-minute minor for hooking.

However, upon being hooked, player B does a full pirouette on ice followed by a flying Superman impression to "sell" the hook. To me, this is unsportmanlike conduct for embellishment (which does not necessarily mean diving) as well, and should be penalized as such.
- jmatchett383

But why? As you stated a penalty is going to be called. Who cares if the hooked player does his flying superman impression. He isn't making the Ref look bad as the Ref was calling a penalty anyway.

But why? As you stated a penalty is going to be called. Who cares if the hooked player does his flying superman impression. He isn't making the Ref look bad as the Ref was calling a penalty anyway.
- sparky

Basically I think it comes down to the fact that refs are not perfect and do miss some calls. When a player dives on a legitimate infraction it almost seems like the diving player is trying preempt the ref's ability to do his job.

Basically I think it comes down to the fact that refs are not perfect and do miss some calls. When a player dives on a legitimate infraction it almost seems like the diving player is trying preempt the ref's ability to do his job.
- PghPens668771

Yes, that, and the fact that embellishment is in itself a penalty regardless of whether or not an infraction occurred to provoke the embellishment.

Sometimes I see where he could have a point, especially on tripping penalties where the player feels another players stick in his feet and then flails around and they both go off when if the player who flails didn't embellish, but took a dive. There should be 2 separate penalties. An embellishment where the player is indeed being fouled but is selling it a bit much and another where I'll call it the Mighty Ducks Dive where Charlie at one point in the movie has a kid's stick up in his visor and coach Bombay is yelling at Charlie to dive. Had Charlie taken a dive he alone should have been penalized because there was no real infraction to begin with. Maybe there are 2 different rules, because I don't know the rulebook inside out. But I can't recall seeing it at the moment.

But why? As you stated a penalty is going to be called. Who cares if the hooked player does his flying superman impression. He isn't making the Ref look bad as the Ref was calling a penalty anyway.
- sparky

Refs have egos

Has nothing to do with egos. It has to do with respecting the spirit of the game and playing it properly. There's no role for embellishment or diving.

As for calling both, it because of basically trying to make the Rule Book be all things to all people. To be honest, I am not a big fan of it. No, two wrongs don't make a right. Neither do three.

I do see the rationale for it, though. The rationale is to take away the power play that a team would have gained if its player would have tried to battle through the foul. The foul itself may be legitimate and enough to merit a call without the "salesmanship."

To me, rather than those semi-automatic offsetting calls, a ref has to feel the game and use judgment on what to call.

But why? As you stated a penalty is going to be called. Who cares if the hooked player does his flying superman impression. He isn't making the Ref look bad as the Ref was calling a penalty anyway.
- sparky

Because embellishment, regardless of whether or not a foul occurred, is a penalty.

Rule 64
– Diving / Embellishment
64.1
Diving / Embellishment
– Any player who blatantly dives, embellishes a fall or a reaction, or who feigns an injury shall be penalized with a minor penalty under this rule.

Has nothing to do with egos. It has to do with respecting the spirit of the game and playing it properly. There's no role for embellishment or diving.

As for calling both, it because of basically trying to make the Rule Book be all things to all people. To be honest, I am not a big fan of it. No, two wrongs don't make a right. Neither do three.

I do see the rationale for it, though. The rationale is to take away the power play that a team would have gained if its player would have tried to battle through the foul. The foul itself may be legitimate and enough to merit a call without the "salesmanship."

To me, rather than those semi-automatic offsetting calls, a ref has to feel the game and use judgment on what to call.
- Paul Stewart

Diving does have a role, it creates a competitive advantage, that's why players do it.

This is just your subjective take on how the game should be played.

Diving has no place in any sport!! It is a form of cheating!!!!!!!!!!!!

Diving does have a role, it creates a competitive advantage, that's why players do it.

This is just your subjective take on how the game should be played.
- aschuter82

Yup. People are going to say it's against the rulebook, but so is slashing/holding/hooking and players do sneaky one's all the time to gain an advantage.