diving? really

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mb30. Show mb30's posts

    Re: diving? really

    Not a dive.  When your legs are moving that fast it doesn't take much to knock you off stride and make you lose an edge.  Also, he clearly was not content in just falling to the ice as he still continued to play the puck.  He had the position there for an odd man rush, why the heck would he dive and throw away a potential scoring chance?  That was a bogus call.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: diving? really

    to further the point, stamkos was called for tripping. seguins reaction was a perfectly normal reaction to being tripped. there were no theatrics to try to influence a call. refs f'd up, plain and simple. the reason why this bothers me soooooo much, is that it's a call that NEEDS to be called more. they just picked the absolute wrong time to call it. very frustrating. i can imagine the players feel the same way.  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: diving? really : From someone who's seen players on his own team do it many times (much to my embarrassment) --- yeah, that was a big-time bellyflop by Seguin.  He shames himself even more with the pained expression on his face as he's heading to the box.
    Posted by 49-North[/QUOTE]
    It still looks to me like he put his left foot down badly, independent of the stick contact.  His ankle almost hits the ice as he's trying to push off.

    I actually think stuff like this is often what's going on when fans call diving.  These guys are playing on ice, and when you are going as hard as you can sometimes you are just going to fall, at a light disruption or even none.

    I'm not going to blame the referees on this one though, I can see how at game speed it looks like a dive.  I will agree with akdbeesfan's sentiment though, it is frustrating to see something that at worst is borderline called when some of the more ridiculous embellishments get away cleanly.  Frankly though, that's not much different of a situation from any other penalty in the NHL.  I'm sure the Officials Association strives for consitency, but I don't think I'm the only one that thinks they still have lots of work to do.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: diving? really

    Folks it's a dive. I know you hate to admit it, but players not wearing Habs or Canucks jerseys dive as well. Maybe not as often or flagrant but even a bruins player will do it. I've watched it several times, it is a dive. Not too many people had a better view than Stamkos and the ref and they saw it that way as well.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourrings. Show fourrings's posts

    Re: diving? really

    i didnt like that call, Seguin may have helped it a bit but he looked like he was off to the races and i doubt he would just give up a possible opportunity to dive
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jwb413. Show jwb413's posts

    Re: diving? really

    I just watched the replay and it was clearly not a dive. Stamkos got him just above his left knee. Seguin was skating hard and even tried to play the puck while he was down. If he dove playing the puck would be the last thing on his mind. Bad call period.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]Folks it's a dive. I know you hate to admit it, but players not wearing Habs or Canucks jerseys dive as well. Maybe not as often or flagrant but even a bruins player will do it. I've watched it several times, it is a dive. Not too many people had a better view than Stamkos and the ref and they saw it that way as well.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]

    Had that been Campbell's stick in Gomez's legs I can guarantee the reaction would be different on here.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]I just watched the replay and it was clearly not a dive. Stamkos got him just above his left knee. Seguin was skating hard and even tried to play the puck while he was down. If he dove playing the puck would be the last thing on his mind. Bad call period.
    Posted by jwb413[/QUOTE]

    Obviously, he's gonna try to play the puck, to make it NOT look like a dive.  "Hey, look ref, he cut me down, but despite the obvious foul, I'm still gonna try to make a play".  The whole point of taking a dive is to convince the ref that it's a legit foul by Stamkos.  Playing the puck is part of that 'sell-job'.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: diving? really

    People see what they want to see, plain and simple. If that were Subban or Burrows there would be an uproar on here. Laundry changes views.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: diving? really

    I see Seguin "helping the call along".  This is also known as embellishment, also known as diving.

    Thing is, I see far worse embellishment nearly every game that does not get called.  It is just odd that the officials chose this game at this time to ring this one up.  Put the whistle away and let the boys play.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: diving? really

    As 306bruin said Seguin toepicked and was going to fall because of it.  The correct call on the play was no penalties.  It was not dive and it was not a trip either.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]I see Seguin "helping the call along".  This is also known as embellishment, also known as diving. Thing is, I see far worse embellishment nearly every game that does not get called.  It is just odd that the officials chose this game at this time to ring this one up.  Put the whistle away and let the boys play.
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]
    This is my thought on the whole matter. What made this "embellishment" any worse than the 4 or 5 others that happen every single game. When watching a Nuck or Hab game you could see up to 8 or 9 "embellishments" a game. Why doesn't a" diving" penalty get called on its own ? Does there always have to be a  penalty call to go along with the "Diving" penalty?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: diving? really

    I don't really see much embellishment, and I do see his legs get tangled up behind him even before the stick catches the top of his shin pad.  I don't think there should have been a call either way - play some freaking hockey - but as I said above, if the refs felt Seguin dove there, there's no good reason to call a trip.  And if Seguin did dive, he'll do it a lot less often if he's giving up a PP when he tries it and fails.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: diving? really

    Lapierre,Burrows or Subban could be called for "embellishing" every game,maybe twice a game.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jwb413. Show jwb413's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In response to "Re: diving? really": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: diving? really : Obviously, he's gonna try to play the puck, to make it NOT look like a dive.  "Hey, look ref, he cut me down, but despite the obvious foul, I'm still gonna try to make a play".  The whole point of taking a dive is to convince the ref that it's a legit foul by Stamkos.  Playing the puck is part of that 'sell-job'. Posted by 49-North[/QUOTE] A. Stamkos made contact B. Stamkos was called. C. Seguin was skating hard. D. Bad call on Seguin. At least there was no BITING involved.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bosoxin09. Show Bosoxin09's posts

    Re: diving? really

    I watched it 10 times and stopped it at various times to see where the stick contacted TS and it clearly was curled around his leg above the knee as he was pushing off to extend his left leg.  The reason it looks like a dive is the pull extended the leg faster and it lifted his skate off the ice.  The angle of his skate was at 45 degrees compared to the blue line making it easier to lift.  This happened so fast it makes it look like a dive but was not.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bosoxin09. Show Bosoxin09's posts

    Re: diving? really

    I watched it 10 times and stopped it at various times to see where the stick contacted TS and it clearly was curled around his leg above the knee as he was pushing off to extend his left leg.  The reason it looks like a dive is the pull extended the leg faster and it lifted his skate off the ice.  The angle of his skate was at 45 degrees compared to the blue line making it easier to lift.  This happened so fast it makes it look like a dive but was not.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: diving? really": A. Stamkos made contact B. Stamkos was called. C. Seguin was skating hard. D. Bad call on Seguin. At least there was no BITING involved.
    Posted by jwb413[/QUOTE]

    Just giving him an excuse to post here.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: diving? really

    the idiocracy of this whole thing, is that it shouldn't be both.  It should be "either" a diving penalty, or a tripping penalty.
    If a guy gets tripped, so what if he he embellishes it a bit.  Fact is...he got tripped.  Either way, it's a penalty.  If he doesn't get tripped, but he attempts to sell it that way, he should get the only penalty.
    The spirit of this rule, and the reason it was instituted, was to deal with the conduct of "some players", making non-penalties appear to be bonafide penalties, not making "real" penalties look even 'more real'.

    In the new NHL, with less tolerence for clutching and grabbing, picks, hooks, and overall obstruction, this whole "diving call" should be used much more judiciously than it did when a player had to be pretty much assaulted in order to draw a penalty.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: diving? really


    Agreed that both tripping and diving calls make no sense.

    I look at that video and I don't see a clear cut dive, if he was diving, it wasn't embellished enough.

    I also know that when I'm playing a pretty minor hook at just the right second can take you down, but sometimes a strong hook can't take you down.

    This is a dive:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2EJhuHsl0
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]As 306bruin said Seguin toepicked and was going to fall because of it.  The correct call on the play was no penalties.  It was not dive and it was not a trip either.
    Posted by Orrthebest[/QUOTE]
    That's what I thought too.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]Agreed that both tripping and diving calls make no sense. I look at that video and I don't see a clear cut dive, if he was diving, it wasn't embellished enough. I also know that when I'm playing a pretty minor hook at just the right second can take you down, but sometimes a strong hook can't take you down. This is a dive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2EJhuHsl0
    Posted by BadHabitude[/QUOTE]

    As is this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv0mI49SjtA&feature=related
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jwb413. Show jwb413's posts

    Re: diving? really

    This is what?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmZWIX0278
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: diving? really

    In Response to Re: diving? really:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: diving? really : As is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv0mI49SjtA&feature=related
    Posted by 49-North[/QUOTE]

    As are these gold medallists :



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urIlWcdT6i4
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: diving? really

    i'd say a little over half of those on the canucks video are actual dives. just falling to the ice does not constitute a dive. it has to be done with "style" to be a dive. the word "embellish" means to "add attractiveness to". just falling is not adding anything, unless there is there is no actual contact at all. arms raising, head jerking, superman diving forward...ect is drawing uneeded "attractiveness" to an otherwise non-penalty. this is much simpler than everyone is making it out to be. easy.... no contact made + falling to the ice = diving.  contact made(penalty or not) + falling normally to the ice = not diving. contact made(penalty or not) + falling to the ice with exxagerated body movements = diving. there is absolutely no way a referee can judge how much contact is enough to take someone off their feet. but if on the way down it looks like the guy is having full body spasms, or was shot.... duh! maybe this is something that needs to be reviewed after the game/ between periods and penalties/fines assessed after the fact.
     

Share