When are they gonna fix this ****ing rule?

[yougo]

lemme guess, Montreal lost tonight?

Whoa, this is getting way too personnal. Leave the Habs out of this

[hockeymanG23]

There is nothing wrong with that call being made. Legitimate penalties can and do get accompanied by legitimate embellishment and the thought process of the diver can almost be seen by the way the embellishment is made. The player makes a spectacle of himself to make sure the ref didn't miss the original infraction. Each is actually a separate incident with it's own necessary penalty.

The Markov one tonight wasn't a crazy dive at all, like Kesler or D. Brown would attempt, he still went down easier than half the bambi legged skaters at drop-in hockey would. He is a professional who has been through that same scenario likely thousands of times in his career, he knows how to take that little shot to the back without falling down. Guys with good awareness like Markov know when the player is standing behind him and what do guys do behind your back in hockey? They give you a little shot, almost every time. Better make sure the ref notices... dive. The refs are very aware of what just happened in that routine exchange and the call is made.

I don't think Markov is one of those notorious, dirty divers by any means. I think he's a fairly respectable player, but every player does it at some point. If a player can't handle that minuscule level of expected contact without honestly falling over then pro hockey is not for them.

The rules aren't always perfect and the refs sure don't get every call right but they have been exploited for so long by unscrupulous divers on plays that pros are more than capable of handling. When that happens the rules tighten up in their application and softies like this get called as a result. Better grab a beer and get used to it because the double penalty on these exchanges aren't about to go away.

[Spec7ral]

I was pretty unaware how fantastic a word imbecile is until just now.

[Big Ev]

Markov did it because Kadri does it on every occasion possible.

[rataylor22]

I don't think it's a hard set rule. I agree sometimes both penalties are warranted. I just don't think EVERY time both penalties are warranted. Sometimes it's a ridiculous dive over nothing and should only be a dive (see, every penalty called on a team playing Boston). Sometimes it's a legitimate penalty and if a player over embellishes the play it should be both.

[MXHockey]

Simple fix would be to have a penalty attached to either infraction:

Embellishment Penalty - for those occasions when a penalty has occurred and the player helps sell the call. The classic even up situation.

Diving Penalty - for those occasions when there is no infraction against a player that warrants a penalty and the player dives to try and draw a call.

[little_boyes_semin]

Think of it this way:

On any play involving two players, there are four possibilities:

1) There was a penalty, and there was no dive
2) There was no penalty, and there was a dive
3) There was no penalty, and there was no dive
4) There was a penalty, and there was a dive

If situation 4 occurs, the ref calls both penalties. Pretty simple.

[mister_mcgoo]

Think of it this way:

On any play involving two players, there are four possibilities:

1) There was a penalty, and there was no dive
2) There was no penalty, and there was a dive
3) There was no penalty, and there was no dive
4) There was a penalty, and there was a dive

If situation 4 occurs, the ref calls both penalties. Pretty simple.

negative...the two concepts are mutually exclusive

if i shoot you in the kneecap would you get charged with a felony too for falling down too quickly? the ref needs to be smart enough to recognize what is going on on the play. If one guy really does punch another player in the head or slash him forcefully etc then it's a ****ing penalty, it doesn't matter what the victim does after that, it's irrelevant. And similarly if a guy taps his opponent with his stick and he goes down like a sack of potatoes then not only does he not get a penalty but his opponent needs to be penalized for diving. You can't have both that's ****ing ******ed

[doulos]

negative...the two concepts are mutually exclusive

if i shoot you in the kneecap would you get charged with a felony too for falling down too quickly? the ref needs to be smart enough to recognize what is going on on the play. If one guy really does punch another player in the head or slash him forcefully etc then it's a ****ing penalty, it doesn't matter what the victim does after that, it's irrelevant. And similarly if a guy taps his opponent with his stick and he goes down like a sack of potatoes then not only does he not get a penalty but his opponent needs to be penalized for diving. You can't have both that's ****ing ******ed

Clearly multiple people here completely disagree with you that they have to be mutually exclusive. Just set aside your 'Let me be a prick on the internet' persona for a moment, and even though you might disagree with many of us in our opinion that both can certainly be called, is it that difficult for you to just politely say 'Okay, I disagree, but I can see why you would see it that way."?

[mister_mcgoo]

Clearly multiple people here completely disagree with you that they have to be mutually exclusive. Just set aside your 'Let me be a prick on the internet' persona for a moment, and even though you might disagree with many of us in our opinion that both can certainly be called, is it that difficult for you to just politely say 'Okay, I disagree, but I can see why you would see it that way."?

**** off doulos

[Skin Blues]

Is this guy for real?

[hockeymanG23]

negative...the two concepts are mutually exclusive

if i shoot you in the kneecap would you get charged with a felony too for falling down too quickly?

A bit extreme, don't you think? I can't consider this to be even close to a parallel analogy.

the ref needs to be smart enough to recognize what is going on on the play.

The ref does recognize what is going on and calls all appropriate penalties on the play.

If one guy really does punch another player in the head or slash him forcefully etc then it's a ****ing penalty, it doesn't matter what the victim does after that, it's irrelevant.

This is one reasonable scenario... what the "victim" does is relevant though. More on that later.

And similarly if a guy taps his opponent with his stick and he goes down like a sack of potatoes then not only does he not get a penalty but his opponent needs to be penalized for diving.

This point is sensible.

You can't have both that's ****ing ******ed

Have to disagree here though.

Say someone was driving their vehicle and hit you (the original penalty), they are going to get in trouble for that though fines, arrests, loss of driving privileges for example (2 min, 5 min, game misconduct penalty, etc). You may get some compensation (PP time for your team, whoo hoo!). Now imagine that you weren't actually injured in the collision and despite being unharmed you try to milk the situation for extra insurance money by pretending you were severely harmed in the situation (embellishment), that would be fraud. If you are caught you would also be criminally charged (coinciding penalties).

Both can and do exist at the same time on occasion.

Sometimes the infraction is clearly one or the other but there are too many shades of grey between the two for it to always be black and white.

Is this guy for real?

Oh, he's for real. mcgoo sticks to his gun through thick and thin though.

Here's an interesting tibit I found on the cartoon Mr. Magoo's Wikipedia page. Some of the similarities are eerie.

Quincy Magoo (or simply Mr. Magoo) is a cartoon character created at the UPA animation studio in 1949. Voiced by Jim Backus, Quincy Magoo is a wealthy, short-statured retiree who gets into a series of comical situations as a result of his nearsightedness, compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem. However, through uncanny streaks of luck, the situation always seems to work itself out for him, leaving him no worse than before.
Affected people (or animals) consequently tend to think that he is a lunatic, rather than just being nearsighted.

The Magoo character was originally conceived as a mean-spirited McCarthy-like reactionary whose mumbling would include as much outrageous misanthropic ranting as the animators could get away with.