Diving calls.

[Eleven]

Seems Boynton's comment a couple of months ago might have taken hold. I can't remember two games in a row in the last month where the Sabres weren't called for a dive in at least one. Tonight was particularly irritating; Afinogenov was completely manhandled by Brashear, driven to the ground, and matching minors resulted because Afinogenov was "diving." No way does a player his size survive Brashear's treatment without hitting the ice.

 

I am no conspiracy theorist. I do think the Sabs get punished for bitching too much. And right now, I think they get called for diving a little too often. Somehow they got a bad rep. Hope it changes come April 21.

[Corp000085]

my only argument is that you cannot have matching calls with one being a dive. You either commit a penalty on a player or the other player embellishes an almost-penalty and receives a dive. Simply be definition, you cannot hook or obstruct and have the opponent dive at the same time.

[DWarner]

That call was total crap. Even the Philly announcers were saying it was a bad call and they called the Sabres divers at least twice during the previous game in Philly.

[X. Benedict]

my only argument is that you cannot have matching calls with one being a dive. You either commit a penalty on a player or the other player embellishes an almost-penalty and receives a dive. Simply be definition, you cannot hook or obstruct and have the opponent dive at the same time.

 

Excellent point. That is the dumbest thing of all, calling matching penalties when there is a dive. Either it should be a dive with no infraction, or a penelty with no dive. Last night Brasheer had enough time with Max on that play that it was starting to look like prison love. They called that a dive <_<

 

I can't seem to remember a diving call on Buffalo prior to the Olympic break, now they are getting called once a game in matching minors.

[Stoner]

Brian Blessing and Mike Robitaille used to say it should be one or the other, and it drove me nuts. How dense can you be? Player A hooks Player B. If it's a hook, it's a hook. The player diving does not wipe out the fact that a hook occurred. That's a penalty. Player B dives. If it's a dive, it's a dive. Just because you've been hooked doesn't mean you can't embellish it. That's a penalty. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

I did think the call on Max was weak. Dives are often obvious. That wasn't. I don't know how a ref can tell the difference sometimes.

[X. Benedict]

Brian Blessing and Mike Robitaille used to say it should be one or the other, and it drove me nuts. How dense can you be? Player A hooks Player B. If it's a hook, it's a hook. The player diving does not wipe out the fact that a hook occurred. That's a penalty. Player B dives. If it's a dive, it's a dive. Just because you've been hooked doesn't mean you can't embellish it. That's a penalty. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

I think a dive should be called only when the contact does not warrant a penalty. I guess I'm dense, but consistent.

 

It does little good to be on the ice when you have a delayed penalty.

[Taro T]

I think a dive should be called only when the contact does not warrant a penalty. I guess I'm dense, but consistent.

 

It does little good to be on the ice when you have a delayed penalty.

I agree 100%. If somebody hooks you, he hooks you. Whether you go down easily or not, does not alter the fact that you have been hooked. How does one determine whether you went down easily or not? A large part of how it looks when you fall is which foot is your weight on. If you are hooked on the side your weight is on, you WILL go down. If your weight is on the other side, you can fight through the hook.

 

If you aren't hooked (or tripped, etc.) and you go down, then you have dove and deserve a penalty.