McGarnagle
New member
L K said:
If the officials are trying to make a point to babcock, why only specific to one player? It was the Komorov "penalty" that set babcock off in Minn.....
Bruins @ Leafs - Mar. 26th, 7:00pm - CBC, TSN 1050
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
If the officials are trying to make a point to babcock, why only specific to one player? It was the Komorov "penalty" that set babcock off in Minn.....
GhostofPotvin29
New member
AvroArrow said:
If he did with any consistency then he should have been called for it over the last number of years, not all of a sudden. I really don't think he embellishes much, and it's being overblown now because there's suddenly a focus on it and everything in Toronto gets an extra microscope.
EDIT: But in either case the refs are in the wrong.
Potvin29 said:
There's a pretty big difference between embellishment and diving too. You'll notice that Kadri has never received a diving fine from the league before. Those aren't handed out in the heat of the moment, the league reviews that after the game and decides if fines are needed. Kadri's never received one.
And if the league does have a problem with Kadri's embellishment habits, the solution to that is to actually penalize him for it. Not to basically send a message out to NHL teams saying you can do whatever you want to Nazem Kadri, we're not calling penalties for him anymore.
CarltonTheBear said:
As I am one who does not shy away from bad mouthing Kadri for flopping around a lot during a game. But being cross checked face first in the boards with less then 2 mins in the game is penalty no matter who it is. it was an awful missed call. Ref's should be ashamed
AvroArrow said:
Ah you mean that time he was slashed in the back of the ankles by two different players and then jumped from behind? Yeah, I mean even if he did throw his stick a little in the air that's not really the type of embellishment penalties that should be getting called.
Kadri's received 1 (ONE!) embellishment minor penalty in the last two seasons. And it was a terrible call.
McGarnagle
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
I think you're making it easier/simpler than it is. If they recognized blatant embellishment/diving in real-time, I'm sure they would. But they don't have the luxury of slow motion and other angles. They see a player being impeded, and falling- and the whole focus on officiating has been to call as much obstruction as possible over the last 5ish years. Kadri regularly sells a borderline obstruction into penalty not with a massive swan dive, but a brief stumble. It's worked extremely well.
From what I've seen, the league is identifying/fining the swan divers that embarrass the game. Kadri hasn't done that. But clearly something has changed in the referees minds, based on the last 5 or so games - and my hunch says that either the referees have started seeing something in the body of work, or there's been some sort of communication.
Kin
New member
McGarnagle said:
But what CTB is saying is that of the two options you've prescribed there as alternate explanations neither are really appropriate ways for such a thing to bee handled. If the league, upon sober reflection, think that Kadri's guilty of embellishment then they have a mechanism for dealing with that via fine as opposed to "some sort of communication".
Alternately, as far as I know, it's not really within officials' purview to collectively form opinions on what they think a player has done in the past and start calling penalties differently as a result. That's not something we should want referees to do and, honestly, it's not something referees should want.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
It may not be something we want, or what the referees want, but I do think it's human nature to form opinions and react based on someone's past actions.
That being said, Kadri walks a fine line. He's actually pretty good at it too. He keeps his feet moving and generally does not have much theatrics in his falls.
AvroArrow said:
It's a terrible call for the spirit of the rule. I feel like the true embellishment calls should be on things like hooking and holding, almost like that Parenteau play on Stempniak last night. Stempniak should have received an embellishment penalty there. Reacting to a violent penalty like a slash, even if it was a little overdone, shouldn't be grounds for an embellishment penalty.
McGarnagle
New member
Nik the Trik said:
I hope that I didn't give the impression that either of these two options, which I certainly concede could have a tin foil hat on each for all the direct knowledge I have on the situation, are appropriate.
But I don't think the league really does have a mechanism for addressing "ongoing slight embellishment at the speed of the game which can't be readily identified without video review" (which I shall now coin as OSEATSOTGWCBRIVW) - which ideally would be called as a 2 min minor - and outright diving, which appears to have to be blatant enough for the league to make it worth fining/embarrassing the player and avoid blowback controversy from the players union.
And I don't think its crazy to assume that when referees seem to notice a player regularly going down a bit too easy over the course of multiple seasons, that they talk, and a reputation/bias gets formed. Until the robots take over, the human condition is going to have to remain a factor.
AvroArrow said:
It doesn't change the fact that 1) most people's issue with Kadri in regards to embellishment is that he drops too easy, 2) Kadri's only received 1 embellishment penalty in the past 2 seasons, and 3) that one embellishment penalty he received didn't even address point #1.
So if Kadri has an embellishment problem, the league and the refs have done an absolutely terrible job addressing it. And if I'm Nazem Kadri, why would I change anything that I'm doing?
AvroArrow said:
Kadri, embellishment, and his relationship with the refs. What's not clear about that?
CarltonTheBear said:
What's not clear is how you went from my last comment to what you said.
You were trying to discredit the embellishment penalty against Kadri for nonsensical reasons. I countered you. Then, well, whatever the heck you said...
I don't understand what 1 has to do with this penalty...
As for 2... Well, it all has to start somewhere, now doesn't it? Guess what... It just started on that penalty...
As for 3... What the heck do the opinions of 'most people' have to do with this? Last I checked, 'most people' have no authority in the game...