PDA

View Full Version : Why do Hockey East refs encourage players to dive?



Cat lover
04-25-2013, 08:47 AM
Several years ago in an effort to stop players from embellishing college hockey added a
rule to penalize players from this practice. But somewhere along the way Hockey East
refs(maybe all refs I only call what I see) made the rule actually increase the practice.

Here is the problem......

There are 3 things that can result from a player when he tries to flop, dive etc.

1. The refs call a penalty on the other team(dive successfull)
2. The refs call matching calls on both players ex. hook and a dive(dive a draw)
3. The refs call a dive only (dive unsuccesfull)

The problem as I have observed over the last few years is the HE Refs only call #1 & #2 and
never #3. The refs mostly take the cop-out call #2 which usually angers both teams and solves
nothing.

If you are a player and the only 2 results of a dive are you getting a powerplay or the ref calling
a matching why would you not want to dive? You wouldnt because the WORST you get out of the
deal is a draw. It s NO LOSE GAMBLE!!!

I watched over 40 college games this year and only saw 1 dive only call. HE needs
to make the refs make a dive only call for the rule to have any power.

FlagDUDE08
04-25-2013, 08:50 AM
Several years ago in an effort to stop players from embellishing college hockey added a
rule to penalize players from this practice. But somewhere along the way Hockey East
refs(maybe all refs I only call what I see) made the rule actually increase the practice.

Here is the problem......

There are 3 things that can result from a player when he tries to flop, dive etc.

1. The refs call a penalty on the other team(dive successfull)
2. The refs call matching calls on both players ex. hook and a dive(dive a draw)
3. The refs call a dive only (dive unsuccesfull)

The problem as I have observed over the last few years is the HE Refs only call #1 & #2 and
never #3. The refs mostly take the cop-out call #2 which usually angers both teams and solves
nothing.

If you are a player and the only 2 results of a dive are you getting a powerplay or the ref calling
a matching why would you not want to dive? You wouldnt because the WORST you get out of the
deal is a draw. It s NO LOSE GAMBLE!!!

I watched over 40 college games this year and only saw 1 dive only call. HE needs
to make the refs make a dive only call for the rule to have any power.

1. Diving has always been a rule; it was merely a point of emphasis a few years ago.
2. It's not limited to Hockey East refs.
3. Watch a neutral live-action game and see if you can spot all the dives real-time without replay.

Snively65
04-25-2013, 08:59 AM
I agree with flag dude. I think that dives are some times hard to see as some of these kids are not all that stable on their skates. Easier to call dives in the NHL. But, still nothing compared to the diving in soccer, which is easy to recognize. But, great off-season thread topic!

mookie1995
04-25-2013, 09:35 AM
????

Y'all got Mookie!!
I thought this was the bu offseason thread :D

Patman
04-25-2013, 09:50 AM
As with case #3 I am willing to allow cases where it could be #2 but the flopping was eregious enough to be a bigger infraction than the original penalty. A bit subjective, but nevertheless... a light tug relating in a massive non-physics supported spill should mean the dive takes precedence.

BU2K
04-25-2013, 10:07 AM
Because they misunderstood what there wived meant when they said they wanted more diving? :D

COHockey
04-25-2013, 10:35 AM
The joke in the fWCHA was that the refs only called splashing. If the dive was clean with no splashing on the refs, they would call #1 or #2. Only when they got splashed on they ever call #3.

J.D.
04-25-2013, 11:22 AM
I'm pretty sure BU had multiple stand alone diving/embellishment calls go against them.

Nick Papagiorgio
04-25-2013, 12:06 PM
Because Jack Parker paid them* to?

*before this season

:D

UncleRay
04-25-2013, 04:32 PM
I've never understood the matching penalties. If it was a hook, it's not diving. If it's diving, there is no hook.

Craig P.
04-25-2013, 04:41 PM
I've never understood the matching penalties. If it was a hook, it's not diving. If it's diving, there is no hook.

If you're hooked and get impeded for a step or two, then flop, it's both a hook and a dive. Hooking doesn't have to involve pulling you all the way to the ice.

CLS
04-25-2013, 09:08 PM
The usual case #2 -- the matching situation -- it's more "embellishment" than it is "diving" if by diving you mean that the player goes down without any contact at all. The diver's team actually does lose out. If it weren't for the dive, they'd have a power play, so you can't really say that the dive was "successful".

Hammer
04-25-2013, 09:19 PM
If you're hooked and get impeded for a step or two, then flop, it's both a hook and a dive. Hooking doesn't have to involve pulling you all the way to the ice.

This. Just because you've been hooked does not mean you have license to flop on the ice like you've just been hit by a Buick.

FlagDUDE08
04-26-2013, 04:10 PM
I've never understood the matching penalties. If it was a hook, it's not diving. If it's diving, there is no hook.

That's why it usually goes onto the sheet as "unsportsmanlike conduct - embellishment".

GoUNH
04-27-2013, 04:17 AM
If you're hooked and get impeded for a step or two, then flop, it's both a hook and a dive. Hooking doesn't have to involve pulling you all the way to the ice.
That would be hooking, only. If there was no hook and a flop then if would be embellishment. The matching penalties, one of them being embellishment is ridiculous but I see it all the time.

UncleRay
04-27-2013, 09:11 AM
That's why it usually goes onto the sheet as "unsportsmanlike conduct - embellishment".You mean, because there is no penalty called "diving," but there is one called "unsportsmanlike conduct - embellishment"? :rolleyes:

NCAAfan500
04-27-2013, 09:34 AM
You mean, because there is no penalty called "diving," but there is one called "unsportsmanlike conduct - embellishment"? :rolleyes:

Rule 68 - Diving/Embellishment
68.1 Diving/Embellishment - A player shall not attempt to draw a penalty through any exaggerated or deceitful action. A diving penalty is a stand- alone penalty.

60
SECTION 9 / OTHEr FOULS
PENALTY—Minor for diving.
A player who has been fouled shall not exaggerate the impact of the foul. An embellishment penalty is called in conjunction with an opponent’s penalty.

Craig P.
04-27-2013, 10:03 PM
That would be hooking, only.

Why? If there is a legitimate hook accompanied by a legitimate flop (see my example below), why can't both be called, aside from it offending your sensibilities of how the world ought to work in black and white?

Patman
04-28-2013, 12:40 AM
This. Just because you've been hooked does not mean you have license to flop on the ice like you've just been hit by a Buick.

if you grab both I'd like to think it was a significant enough hook... to me "embellishment" is the more important infraction to it'd have to come down to severity.