Explain This To Me?!?!

[Guest L3T5G0W1NG5]

In the NHL, when a player gets a penalty for diving, the other player gets a penalty as well. Sometimes they both deserve a penalty, but a lot of the time only the diver deserves the penalty.

For example, yesterday in the Chicago vs Vancouver game at the end of the 2nd period Sedin gave the goalie a little cross check. The Chicago defense man (Campbell) gave Sedin a little cross check back (barely enough to move a player) and Sedin dove BIG TIME. I think that only Sedin deserves a penalty, not both of them. The cross check wasn't hard AT ALL so why even give him a penalty to begin with?

Has anyone ever seen only 1 penalty called, for diving? I haven't...

[Konnan511 1,736]

I wasn't speeding, I was only speeding a little bit, I shouldn't get in trouble.

Barely a crosscheck is still a crosscheck.

I mean, this is a brutal crosscheck that nearly stops Sedin's heart.

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

Ahh the Swedish stereotypes are alive and well.

[Guest Grayne Wetzky]

ha ha ha ha ha

I wouldn't even call that a "Shove", much less a cross-check. He pushed him with one of his gloves. It's hilarious.

I wasn't speeding, I was only speeding a little bit, I shouldn't get in trouble.

Barely a crosscheck is still a crosscheck.

I mean, this is a brutal crosscheck that nearly stops Sedin's heart.

[Guest L3T5G0W1NG5]

After seeing that GIF, it wasn't even a cross check; just a nudge. Definitely not enough to warrant a penalty.

[Konnan511 1,736]

ha ha ha ha ha

I wouldn't even call that a "Shove", much less a cross-check. He pushed him with one of his gloves. It's hilarious.

It's not funny. he almost killed Sedin. Look how he clutches his heart on the ice to make sure he was still alive, scary stuff.

[eva unit zero 271]

Ok. So when a player dives, it is rare for him to dive without his opponent to have committed a penalty; at least as far as the rulebook is concerned. So if the referee sees what he considers a dive, and is going to call it, he almost certainly saw what led to the dive, and will be calling that as well.

In your example, Campbell cross checked Sedin and Sedin dove. Cross checking is one of the more obvious penalties, if not the most obvious. I mean...both hands on the stick, hitting the guy with your stick...pretty hard to plead "not guilty" to that one. The only things wrong with the play were, assuming your account is exactly accurate (I didn't see the play) are the ref not calling Sedin for a cross-check (or GI if you prefer), and the fact that Sedin was too obvious in his dive.

It's likely the ref didn't see Sedin's bump on Crawford, but he did see the rest and that led to coincidental minors. I'm assuming Vancouver had the puck, or the whistle would have been blown dead on Campbell's crosscheck. So Vancouver has the puck, Sedin bumps Crawford, and Campbell hits Sedin. If the ref sees Sedin and calls him for that, we still end up with coincidental minors; just no dive this time.

EDIT: Upon Seeing the GIF posted above, I'd say Campbell should have been called for roughing rather than a cross check; although a cross check is arguable. Also, it looks like Sedin's right skate gets caught on or in something. Plus, Campbell shoves Sedin into the crossbar. I have the benefit of instant replay, but that looks more like an awkward fall than a dive.

Edited April 25, 2011 by eva unit zero

[VM1138 1,921]

Ok. So when a player dives, it is rare for him to dive without his opponent to have committed a penalty; at least as far as the rulebook is concerned. So if the referee sees what he considers a dive, and is going to call it, he almost certainly saw what led to the dive, and will be calling that as well.

In your example, Campbell cross checked Sedin and Sedin dove. Cross checking is one of the more obvious penalties, if not the most obvious. I mean...both hands on the stick, hitting the guy with your stick...pretty hard to plead "not guilty" to that one. The only things wrong with the play were, assuming your account is exactly accurate (I didn't see the play) are the ref not calling Sedin for a cross-check (or GI if you prefer), and the fact that Sedin was too obvious in his dive.

But the nature of most dives is that there's only incidental contact and they go down like they were shot.

[Guest Shoreline]

It was an obvious embellishment.

That being said if you look at, historically, how the NHL has functioned surrounding penalties, they selectively decide to call penalties, and like the hooking, holding, interference issue that plagued the league for several years before the lockout, it looks like they've decided to overlook almost every instance of diving.

Why are people treating it like this is law? That's why the NHL is a laughing stock over this headshot/blindside horse s***. They call penalties they feel like calling and don't call the ones they don't feel like calling. It's as simple as that. Any arguments with this?

Edited April 25, 2011 by Shoreline

[eva unit zero 271]

But the nature of most dives is that there's only incidental contact and they go down like they were shot.

The thing is, diving is any

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.

A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for diving / embellishment.

It doesn't say "Any player who dives trying to draw a penalty call where there shouldn't be one." People need to get the "Is it a penalty, or is it a dive?" attitude out of their brains because it can be both.

[Toefuzz 58]

I remember Federov getting called for diving back when it was the popular call to make. He was great to watch at times... Oscar worthy even.

Edited b/c my phone has a retarded spell checker.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Toefuzz

[Guest Shoreline]

I remember Federov getting called for diving back when it was the popular call to make. He was great to watch at times... Oscar worthy even.

Edited b/c my phone has a retarded spell checker.

Does it have a spell check for Fedorov too?

(sorry had to)

[Toefuzz 58]

Does it have a spell check for Fedorov too?

(sorry had to)

I would give you props but I'm on my phone. Stupid mobile version. You almost inspired me to reach over, pick up the laptop, turn it on, login to LGW, just so I could give you +1 but then I remembered I'm lazy

[Guest Shoreline]

I would give you props but I'm on my phone. Stupid mobile version. You almost inspired me to reach over, pick up the laptop, turn it on, login to LGW, just so I could give you +1 but then I remembered I'm lazy

Don't worry I'm lazy too, but admittedly it used to irritate me (one of those pet peeves) how on these forums and another Red Wing forum I used to go to before this one, how many Red Wing fans misspelled a guy's name they saw and read almost every time they visited the forums.

And I bet more would be willing to "-" me for that post of mine above if the option were there. Not that I care though.

[Toefuzz 58]

Don't worry I'm lazy too, but admittedly it used to irritate me (one of those pet peeves) how on these forums and another Red Wing forum I used to go to before this one, how many Red Wing fans misspelled a guy's name they saw and read almost every time they visited the forums.

And I bet more would be willing to "-" me for that post of mine above if the option were there. Not that I care though.

No way! A well deserved correction deserves a plus, though in my defense it's been a few years since I watched him play

[Earthhuman 8]

Out of curiosity, is it considered a penalty to initiate contact after a play is blown dead?

[Guest Shoreline]

Out of curiosity, is it considered a penalty to initiate contact after a play is blown dead?

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=27011

Have a blast.

[Buppy 1,720]

I wasn't speeding, I was only speeding a little bit, I shouldn't get in trouble.

Barely a crosscheck is still a crosscheck.

I mean, this is a brutal crosscheck that nearly stops Sedin's heart.

So it's official. Even the refs don't know what cross-checking is. That wasn't.

"59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent."

Roughing probably comes closest, if they had to call something. Maybe butt-ending if the refs really wanted to screw the Hawks. Mostly it was just a very flagrant dive during a pretty routine post-whistle shoving match.

The thing is, diving is any

"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.

A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for diving / embellishment."

It doesn't say "Any player who dives trying to draw a penalty call where there shouldn't be one." People need to get the "Is it a penalty, or is it a dive?" attitude out of their brains because it can be both.

Being a rule doesn't mean it isn't stupid. Personally, I think diving/embellishment should be a double-minor. PP against the diving team whether there's an original penalty or not. That (if actually enforced) would get rid of it.

[esteef 2,679]

esteef

[Guest Crymson]

In the NHL, when a player gets a penalty for diving, the other player gets a penalty as well. Sometimes they both deserve a penalty, but a lot of the time only the diver deserves the penalty.

For example, yesterday in the Chicago vs Vancouver game at the end of the 2nd period Sedin gave the goalie a little cross check. The Chicago defense man (Campbell) gave Sedin a little cross check back (barely enough to move a player) and Sedin dove BIG TIME. I think that only Sedin deserves a penalty, not both of them. The cross check wasn't hard AT ALL so why even give him a penalty to begin with?

Has anyone ever seen only 1 penalty called, for diving? I haven't...

I sure have!

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Seems these days refs rarely have the balls to call diving without calling a penalty to cancel it out. The Sedin play should've been diving on him and nothing else. That wasn't even a crosscheck and is something that happens just about every time the players gather around the goalie.

[Sprsquirt7 45]

Im not 100% sure but I am almost positive that Helm got called for a dive against SJ in the playoffs last year. Only a dive no other penalties. He lost and edge got up and kept going. They still called the dive to give them one of their many 5 on 3's that series. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but thats an example for the OP.

[rrasco 1,312]

I usually see them call a dive in order to cancel out the penalty they shouldn't have just called.

Example. Cross check called against Chicago. Ref realizes it wasn't actually a cross check. Calls diving on Vancouver to make up for his mistake.

[OldMan333 13]

Im not 100% sure but I am almost positive that Helm got called for a dive against SJ in the playoffs last year. Only a dive no other penalties. He lost and edge got up and kept going. They still called the dive to give them one of their many 5 on 3's that series. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but thats an example for the OP.

Checked NHL.com and didn't see any dives in SJ series, but Helm was called for a dive at 17:11 of 2nd period in Game 7 against PHX. Lombardi got the companion penalty (Interference at 17:11). So still looking for a solo dive call.