Is “embellishment” more of just an out for bad calls?

[SpikeDDS]

Regarding last night’s game with the Flyers, same story, different day. “Not good enough” even though we played well enough to get a point. Broken record.

 

But at the end of the game, Vorachek was called for an elbowing penalty when he took down AA in the corner. The size difference between Vorachek is pretty significant. The elbow did take AA down but it was more of a “shove” than a “shot.” I will concede that it was a questionable call. That call could have gone either way.

 

What should not have been called was embellishment. There is no question that Vorachek took AA down. He didn’t dive. A much larger guy used his size to take another smaller guy down. But there was ZERO attempt by AA to lose his feet. Vorachek took care of that for him. You can argue that what Vorachek did was just a hockey play as Eddie O and Pierre did last night. I can accept that as one way of looking at that takedown. But it WAS a legit takedown. It was not a dive. Yet they called both.

 

I would rather see the officials have a confab to discuss what others saw and for the lead official to announce “there was no penalty on the play” than use the diving penalty to cover their butts. If the first call was a mistake, and you have a chance to un-make it, then un-make it. Don’t make another one to make up for what you ended up deciding was a bad call in the first place.

 

Mistakes get made. If you can’t un-make one, then I can see where a “makeup call” is necessary. But it was not necessary here. If they saw the play differently after a moment of reflection and discussion, say so. Officials do it in football all the time and they are RESPECTED for doing so a VAST majority of the time. 

 

I would argue that the diving penalty is being used much more to cover officials bad calls than it is to call ACTUAL embellishment, and this needs to be addressed by the league. This practice of using it to bail out officials needs to stop. Call a penalty that wasn’t actually a penalty, say so, and don’t put anyone in the box and let them play hockey. Stop covering up bad officiating with diving calls!

[mojo1917]

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

What should not have been called was embellishment. There is no question that Vorachek took AA down. He didn’t dive. A much larger guy used his size to take another smaller guy down. But there was ZERO attempt by AA to lose his feet. Vorachek took care of that for him. You can argue that what Vorachek did was just a hockey play as Eddie O and Pierre did last night. I can accept that as one way of looking at that takedown. But it WAS a legit takedown. It was not a dive. Yet they called both.

yes, this is frustrating. Definitely a case where the "flag" could have been picked up.

sometimes a big guy knocks a little guy down because he's bigger and stronger, that's physics. 

i have found the refereeing to be wildly inconsistent this year.

 

 

[flyerrod]

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

I would argue that the diving penalty is being used much more to cover officials bad calls than it is to call ACTUAL embellishment, and this needs to be addressed by the league. This practice of using it to bail out officials needs to stop. Call a penalty that wasn’t actually a penalty, say so, and don’t put anyone in the box and let them play hockey. Stop covering up bad officiating with diving calls!

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Two guys fighting for the puck and the stronger(larger) player won. Correct the call then  move the faceoff to center ice at the most. Anath......... played very weak on the puck several times last night but that last one really stuck out.

[JR Ewing]

3 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

yes, this is frustrating. Definitely a case where the "flag" could have been picked up.

sometimes a big guy knocks a little guy down because he's bigger and stronger, that's physics. 

i have found the refereeing to be wildly inconsistent this year.

 

 

 

Hmmm...  

 

 

[mojo1917]

@JR Ewing

 

The sporadically enforced "slashing" calls are really my biggest gripe this year.

"Interference" is another penalty I see called as a result of officiating whimsy.

I get it this is a hard sport to officiate because of the speed and it's inherent violence. 

I wish though there was a standard for what constitutes a penalty and don't get me started about the supplemental discipline 

 

[Podein25]

17 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

"Interference" is another penalty I see called as a result of officiating whimsy.

 

Great phrase. 

 

I agree. I think they miss more interference than they call, especially picks, which have no place in hockey. Go play basketball or lacrosse if you want picks!

[JR Ewing]

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

@JR Ewing

 

The sporadically enforced "slashing" calls are really my biggest gripe this year.

"Interference" is another penalty I see called as a result of officiating whimsy.

I get it this is a hard sport to officiate because of the speed and it's inherent violence. 

I wish though there was a standard for what constitutes a penalty and don't get me started about the supplemental discipline 

 

 

Oh, I'm not busting your balls; not even a little bit. I agree 100%.

 

[OccamsRazor]

20 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

Regarding last night’s game with the Flyers, same story, different day. “Not good enough” even though we played well enough to get a point. Broken record.

 

But at the end of the game, Vorachek was called for an elbowing penalty when he took down AA in the corner. The size difference between Vorachek is pretty significant. The elbow did take AA down but it was more of a “shove” than a “shot.” I will concede that it was a questionable call. That call could have gone either way.

 

What should not have been called was embellishment. There is no question that Vorachek took AA down. He didn’t dive. A much larger guy used his size to take another smaller guy down. But there was ZERO attempt by AA to lose his feet. Vorachek took care of that for him. You can argue that what Vorachek did was just a hockey play as Eddie O and Pierre did last night. I can accept that as one way of looking at that takedown. But it WAS a legit takedown. It was not a dive. Yet they called both.

 

I would rather see the officials have a confab to discuss what others saw and for the lead official to announce “there was no penalty on the play” than use the diving penalty to cover their butts. If the first call was a mistake, and you have a chance to un-make it, then un-make it. Don’t make another one to make up for what you ended up deciding was a bad call in the first place.

 

Mistakes get made. If you can’t un-make one, then I can see where a “makeup call” is necessary. But it was not necessary here. If they saw the play differently after a moment of reflection and discussion, say so. Officials do it in football all the time and they are RESPECTED for doing so a VAST majority of the time. 

 

I would argue that the diving penalty is being used much more to cover officials bad calls than it is to call ACTUAL embellishment, and this needs to be addressed by the league. This practice of using it to bail out officials needs to stop. Call a penalty that wasn’t actually a penalty, say so, and don’t put anyone in the box and let them play hockey. Stop covering up bad officiating with diving calls!

 

 

Well it is like a 12 step program.

 

Step #1 admitting you made a mistake.

 

The NHL does not like saying that.

 

And like in football we see the judges talk about it and sometimes pick of the flag ot in some cases come out and say that their was no foul on the play.

 

And continue on.

 

So until they man up and admit to #1 it can't go further.

[SpikeDDS]

@OccamsRazor

 

And let’s face it, some of this is from history. Remember back in the day when there was only one ref and two linesmen? Back then, since there was just the one ref, there was no confab possibility other than linesmen saying what the saw, but rarely if ever was a penalty called or reversed if the ref didn’t see it.

 

Later, the NHL finally got smart and added a second referee, but there is still a reticence to take back an improper call, even if the second ref sees it correctly, and I think to some degree it harkens back to when there was only 1 ref.

 

They are smart enough to realize that one ref isn’t enough, but NOT smart enough to let the four officials on the ice work together to raise the integrity of the officiating. Instead, in order to “fix” the problem, they let them make yet another bad call to balance out the first bad one. It’s backwards!

 

Yes, I suppose I would agree that I would prefer a poorly officiated game that affects both teams equally over a game which is poorly officiated and favors one team over the other. But there IS a third choice which is a well-officiated hockey game. And since it is inevitable that mistakes WILL be made, officials should strive to get their calls right the first time rather than “correct” bad calls with more bad calls.

[OccamsRazor]

2 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

@OccamsRazor

 

And let’s face it, some of this is from history. Remember back in the day when there was only one red and two linesmen? Back then, since there was just the one red, there was no confab possibility other than linesmen saying what the saw, but rarely if ever was a penalty called or reversed if the ref didn’t see it.

 

Later, the NHL finally got smart and added a second referee, but there is still a reticence to take back an improper call, even if the second ref sees it correctly, and I think to some degree it harkens back to when there was only 1 ref.

 

They are smart enough to realize that one ref isn’t enough, but NOT smart enough to let the four officials on the ice work together to raise the integrity of the officiating. Instead, in order to “fix” the problem, they let them make yet another bad call to balance out the first bad one. It’s backwards!

 

Yes, I suppose I would agree that I would prefer a poorly officiated game that affects both teams equally over a game which is poorly officiated and favors one team over the other. But there IS a third choice which is a well-officiated hockey game. And since it is inevitable that mistakes WILL be made, officials should strive to get their calls right the first time rather than “correct” bad calls with more bad calls.

 

Yes the one that pisses me off is where they say "they meant or intended to blow the whistle then just didn't"....such utter horseshit they let them get away with that.

 

Then go back and take a goal away.

 

[SpikeDDS]

@OccamsRazor

 

Apart from the ref getting hit or knocked down, I totally agree with you. When the ref uses that rule because he “intended” to blow the whistle, but just never got around to actually blowing it even though they could have? In most cases, that’s just ridiculous.

 

I will excuse it when some hockey player interferes with them when trying to blow the whistle, and that IS what the rule is for. But if it’s to make up for, “I just took too long to decide whether to blow the whistle or not,” that is inexcusable.