The Dive of the Game...

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

The Dive of the Game...

Postby NIN on Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:45 pm

Cobly Armstrong wins this one with a tremendous dive that puts him in the drivers seat for this years Floppa award.

Kovalev wanted to skate to the bench because he was out for awhile and getting tired. Colby would'nt allow him. He gathered a loose puck in the neutral zone and instead of dumping it in he held onto the puck as Kovalev lazily skated towards him and the bench. He still held onto the puck and skated it in slowly, just daring Kovalev to try and take it from him. Kovalev is prone to mind farts and he let one rip. He could'nt get the puck away due to Armys great reach so he tackled him. Colby was not going to make a play, he had no intention of attacking. Colby drawed a penalty and in the book of NIN that is the same as diving.

Well done Army, that is the kind of smart hockey we like around here!!
NIN
 

Postby Ron` on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:04 am

You should seek help. You have a serious diving fetish. Yes Kovi was tired, but he pulled him down like a calf in a roping contest. Whining and diving is a minor part of the game, let it go.
Ron`
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,037
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:58 pm
Location: Central PA

Re: The Dive of the Game...

Postby guiner on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:08 am

NIN wrote: Colby drawed a penalty and in the book of NIN that is the same as diving.


Well then the book of NIN is full of nonsense and you show again its not worth reading.

Colby was delaying the play to allow for a clean linechange late in the game. No where in the book of real hockey does it say you are required to attack at all times.

g
guiner
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,048
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Cobb Mountain, CA

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:14 am

Hey you guys are the ones getting all bent out of shape over it. Im just trying to draw (<<SICK PUN) attention to a very underappretiated aspect of the game of hockey. I think diving can make or break a hockey game and I am going to pick a diver of the game so there.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!
NIN
 

Postby guiner on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:19 am

NIN wrote:Hey you guys are the ones getting all bent out of shape over it. Im just trying to draw (<<SICK PUN) attention to a very underappretiated aspect of the game of hockey. I think diving can make or break a hockey game and I am going to pick a diver of the game so there.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!


The only thing you are drawing attention to is that you are clueless. In no way shape or form was that a dive.

g
guiner
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,048
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Cobb Mountain, CA

Postby the wicked child on Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:00 am

Wow. I'm not sure if this post was a bad attempt at being funny or a good attempt at looking stupid.

You have true talent.
the wicked child
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,752
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: :scared:

Postby Vanbiesbrouck on Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:29 am

If Colby managed to dive on that play, then he is stronger than I thought. He got his legs up in the air and even with the height of his head as he fell along the boards, all without jumping. Plus, he waiting for the perfect moment when Kovalev's arms were around him, to dive, making it look like it was Kovalev's fault.

Or, just maybe, Alex tackled him.
Vanbiesbrouck
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:50 pm

Postby Jamie on Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:07 am

Vanbiesbrouck wrote:If Colby managed to dive on that play, then he is stronger than I thought. He got his legs up in the air and even with the height of his head as he fell along the boards, all without jumping. Plus, he waiting for the perfect moment when Kovalev's arms were around him, to dive, making it look like it was Kovalev's fault.

Or, just maybe, Alex tackled him.


Call me crazy, but I am going to go with Colby was tackled on this one. Any NFL scout would have been proud of the wrap up and throw down. Lets also not forget that Kovy is a strong man, and Colby only goes 190.
Jamie
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,062
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:04 pm
Location: Here or there

Postby ExPatriatePen on Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:05 am

Ah NIN strikes again!

I have to give you credit NIN. You were able to create some controversy and stir things up by taking an unpopular position ("I like diving") and cast it out there like your favorite fishing lure to see who took the bait.

Not only that, but you get extra special credit for using an example that wasn't even a dive (Coby Armstrongs drawing of a penality when Kovy actually tackled him).

Not bad work. Not my bag baby, but hey, if it works for you...
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby pfim on Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:33 am

I think Kovalev had the best dive, and the best tackle.
pfim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,789
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am
Location: Sitting in front of my computer

Postby netwolf on Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:40 am

the wicked child wrote:Wow. I'm not sure if this post was a bad attempt at being funny or a good attempt at looking stupid.

You have true talent.


It's neither. EPP actually has it right. It's actually a case of him taking up what he knows to be a wildly unpopular stance (which I doubt he really believes) so he can get into arguements over it and post more often. :P
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,378
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:49 pm

netwolf wrote:
the wicked child wrote:Wow. I'm not sure if this post was a bad attempt at being funny or a good attempt at looking stupid.

You have true talent.


It's neither. EPP actually has it right. It's actually a case of him taking up what he knows to be a wildly unpopular stance (which I doubt he really believes) so he can get into arguements over it and post more often. :P


Oh no good sirs. I recognize that the position I'm taking is unpopular and I would be lieing if I did'nt find the challenge of convinceing you fine folks to agree with me fun. I can't seriously argue for a cause that I don't beleive in. So what is this cause you ask?

Glorifying the art of DIVING by demonstrating that it is no different than the commonly misused terms "embelish" and "drawing" which are just hockey fan friendly words that mean the same thing as DIVING. I aim to point out that there are varying degrees of DIVING but they are all part of the same underappretiated skill. Currently the term "drawing" is used to describe a "great effort" by a player who ended up getting vitimized. If you replace the word drawing with it's correct definition: DIVING, you will be on the same page as me.

I think the "diving" penalty is absurd. If a player actually flops to the ice and gives up on the play in an effort to draw a penalty then just let the play continue while the flopper lays on the ice. No need giving him a penalty on top of that when he is already making himself look like an ass and putting his team at a disadvanteg by making a might of been hook more effective then it ever was intended to be. Calling a player for DIVING when a penalty has been called is the mother of all contradictions.
It's like yeah it was a penalty but since you really made it look like it was the penalty that I was calling anyways you have to sit down as well.

The league is insulting our intelligence with these "bring more fans" rules and I am sick of it. Let the players play the game for crying out loud.

VIVA LE REVOLUTION!!
NIN
 

Postby Defence21 on Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:55 pm

NIN wrote:Glorifying the art of DIVING by demonstrating that it is no different than the commonly misused terms "embelish" and "drawing" which are just hockey fan friendly words that mean the same thing as DIVING. I aim to point out that there are varying degrees of DIVING but they are all part of the same underappretiated skill. Currently the term "drawing" is used to describe a "great effort" by a player who ended up getting vitimized. If you replace the word drawing with it's correct definition: DIVING, you will be on the same page as me.

I see where you are coming from. My only problem with it is the following. When I hear the world "dive," I tend to think of a player unnaturally flopping himself with specific intentions of drawing a penalty when one is not warrented -- essentially trying to persuade a referee. Conversely, when I think of a "draw," I think of a player who neither thwarts the attempted hook, hold, etc, nor embelishes the situation. He simply allows the infraction to happen. This is the natural action the happens due to the obstruction. As for a "great effort," I tend to think of a player who tries to shrug off a hook, hold, trip, etc. and continues to play, but gets obstructed anyway. This is the complete opposite of diving, as the player does everything possible to keep the play alive.

So, they are varying degrees of the same thing, but to call all of them a "dive," which is a term used to describe an actual motion, just doesn't work for me. In the three levels mentioned, one is a clear dive, one is giving up, and one is trying to force through it. Only one is deserving of a penalty, which leads me to...

NIN wrote:I think the "diving" penalty is absurd. If a player actually flops to the ice and gives up on the play in an effort to draw a penalty then just let the play continue while the flopper lays on the ice. No need giving him a penalty on top of that when he is already making himself look like an ass and putting his team at a disadvanteg by making a might of been hook more effective then it ever was intended to be. Calling a player for DIVING when a penalty has been called is the mother of all contradictions.
It's like yeah it was a penalty but since you really made it look like it was the penalty that I was calling anyways you have to sit down as well.

The league is insulting our intelligence with these "bring more fans" rules and I am sick of it. Let the players play the game for crying out loud.

The reason for a diving penalty is because it is unsportsmanlike. Not only is a player making himself and his team look stupid, he also is unjustly trying to get a penalty called against an opposing player -- thus cheating. There are many ways to cheat in sports, including hockey. Illegal sticks, large goal pads, having an untied jersey, and diving. They all give an unfair advantage to a team. Tripping, hooking, holding, etc also are cheating. That is why there are penalties for them. If a player can get a penalty for hooking, why can't a player get a penalty when he tried to make it look like he was hooked, when he really wasn't?

I don't think these are "bring more fans" rules as much as they are "make things fair" rules. They are setup to keep the game even.

Now, on a side note, I don't believe a dive should ever be called with an obstruction penalty. A dive, as I mentioned above, is the act of flopping unnaturally to influence the referees. If a player has to dive, there wasn't an infraction to begin with. If the penalty was "drawn" or "fought through," then there should be no diving penalty, but there should be an obstruction penalty.
Defence21
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,847
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Postby Vanbiesbrouck on Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:14 pm

NIN wrote:If you replace the word drawing with it's correct definition: DIVING, you will be on the same page as me.


Hard work leads to drawing a penalty. A line cycling and someone getting hooked coming out of the corner leads to drawing a penalty. Not dumping the puck in and working down the boards while getting tackled leads to drawing a penalty.

Had Colby dumped it in and flopped to the ice, he would have been diving. Diving and drawing a penalty are two different terms completely.

Calling a player for DIVING when a penalty has been called is the mother of all contradictions.


I agree, as I'm sure a lot of hockey fans do. However, that doesn't mean that players can't draw a penalty through hard work without taking a dive.[/quote]
Vanbiesbrouck
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:50 pm

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:52 pm

Defence21 wrote:I see where you are coming from. My only problem with it is the following. When I hear the world "dive," I tend to think of a player unnaturally flopping himself with specific intentions of drawing a penalty when one is not warrented -- essentially trying to persuade a referee. Conversely, when I think of a "draw," I think of a player who neither thwarts the attempted hook, hold, etc, nor embelishes the situation. He simply allows the infraction to happen. This is the natural action the happens due to the obstruction. As for a "great effort," I tend to think of a player who tries to shrug off a hook, hold, trip, etc. and continues to play, but gets obstructed anyway. This is the complete opposite of diving, as the player does everything possible to keep the play alive.


This is really where my argument is an uphill battle. I am up against years of league perceptions, rules, public perceptions, player perceptions, and especially the announcers who many poeple rely upon to educate them about the rules of the game.

The only thing I have on my side is a strong comprehension of the english language and a devil-may-care attitude. IN the dictionary the term DIVING actually has a meaning that is speciffically for hockey. It reads,"An exaggerated fall, especially by a hockey player, intended to draw a penalty against an opponent." The key word there is "exaggeration". Here is where my thoughts are easily confused with the current perception of the "dive". I beleive an exaggeration is an example of a BAD dive whereas subtlety, like the subtlety Colby Armstrong displayed as he DRAWED Kovy over to him WITH THE INTENT of tactfully gaining the officials vigilence combined with the hope that Kovy would try to hold him up and timming it by allowing his body to go limp just for that second that really made him look like a rag doll. That is in my opinion an example of an exceptional DIVE.

So why am I so stuck on the term dive? Why won't I allow drawing to exist hand in hand with diving. Because ethicially it is absolutley NO DIFFERENT. One goes about it in offish fashion and one uses his wits but they are both driven to acheive the same goal. Dive for a call!

Go ahead and look up the words drawing and embelish, you will find meanings that are simular with the dive definition and therefore they have the same underlying ethical (ie. unsportsmanlike) intentions. There is no place for the Dive penalty in hockey , it is just there because fans got turned off by it and Bettman wants his money. He is the one that is diving.

VIVA LE REVOLUTION! :wink:
NIN
 

Postby guiner on Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:16 pm

NIN wrote:
Defence21 wrote:I see where you are coming from. My only problem with it is the following. When I hear the world "dive," I tend to think of a player unnaturally flopping himself with specific intentions of drawing a penalty when one is not warrented -- essentially trying to persuade a referee. Conversely, when I think of a "draw," I think of a player who neither thwarts the attempted hook, hold, etc, nor embelishes the situation. He simply allows the infraction to happen. This is the natural action the happens due to the obstruction. As for a "great effort," I tend to think of a player who tries to shrug off a hook, hold, trip, etc. and continues to play, but gets obstructed anyway. This is the complete opposite of diving, as the player does everything possible to keep the play alive.


This is really where my argument is an uphill battle. I am up against years of league perceptions, rules, public perceptions, player perceptions, and especially the announcers who many poeple rely upon to educate them about the rules of the game.

The only thing I have on my side is a strong comprehension of the english language and a devil-may-care attitude. IN the dictionary the term DIVING actually has a meaning that is speciffically for hockey. It reads,"An exaggerated fall, especially by a hockey player, intended to draw a penalty against an opponent." The key word there is "exaggeration". Here is where my thoughts are easily confused with the current perception of the "dive". I beleive an exaggeration is an example of a BAD dive whereas subtlety, like the subtlety Colby Armstrong displayed as he DRAWED Kovy over to him WITH THE INTENT of tactfully gaining the officials vigilence combined with the hope that Kovy would try to hold him up and timming it by allowing his body to go limp just for that second that really made him look like a rag doll. That is in my opinion an example of an exceptional DIVE.

So why am I so stuck on the term dive? Why won't I allow drawing to exist hand in hand with diving. Because ethicially it is absolutley NO DIFFERENT. One goes about it in offish fashion and one uses his wits but they are both driven to acheive the same goal. Dive for a call!

Go ahead and look up the words drawing and embelish, you will find meanings that are simular with the dive definition and therefore they have the same underlying ethical (ie. unsportsmanlike) intentions. There is no place for the Dive penalty in hockey , it is just there because fans got turned off by it and Bettman wants his money. He is the one that is diving.

VIVA LE REVOLUTION! :wink:


You are full of ****. On every level this is the most obsurd string of posts I have ever seen in 10 years on this board. You use of the "strong comprehension" of english language is to disregard excepted use of words an arbitrarily substitute your own.

You bounce ethics in baselessly. A "dive" is an intentional effort to draw a penalty by faking an infraction. "Drawing a penalty" is being victimized despite ones efforts to avoid the affects of an obvious and persistent intent to be infracted upon. There is ZERO ethical, motivational, or common sense equivelency here.

One of those nine inch nails must have gone from temple to temple.

g
guiner
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,048
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:07 am
Location: Cobb Mountain, CA

Postby ExPatriatePen on Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:37 pm

NIN wrote:The only thing I have on my side is a strong comprehension of the english language and a devil-may-care attitude.


So it's all about semantics? You want to ignore the fact that when a player takes a 'dive' he's trying to get the ref to call a penalty that didn't occur, ie. Cheating. (And please, spare me the ctachers mitt reference. The catchers mitt issue is NOT cheating. Why not? Because there's nothing in the baseball rule book that prohibits it, and it's been an accepted piece of baseball for eons).

Now, back to the semantics. The word dive used in a sentence:

In the fight between NIN and EPP, NIN took a dive.

Tell me class, what did NIN do? HE CHEATED!!!!
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:12 pm

You use of the "strong comprehension" of english language is to disregard excepted use of words an arbitrarily substitute your own.


So you think I am making up the definitions of these words? I have readily admitted that I am fighting an uphill battle of ignorance but it is not I who am substituting the meaning of these words. I dare you to read them for yourself kind sir.

www.dictionary.com

You bounce ethics in baselessly. A "dive" is an intentional effort to draw a penalty by faking an infraction. "Drawing a penalty" is being victimized despite ones efforts to avoid the affects of an obvious and persistent intent to be infracted upon. There is ZERO ethical, motivational, or common sense equivelency here.


The use of the word ethics was a mistake because it is too strong a term but it is still accurate. Being unsportsmanlike is being unethical. Again, too strong a term but see how two words that mean the same thing can be veiwed so differently? Kind of like diving and drawing. In fact, you will note that in the hockey description of the definition of diving the word drawing is used. I don't know what that tells you but to me it means pretty much the same thing.

One of those nine inch nails must have gone from temple to temple.


Nice jab. I actually don't know what the name of their band means but what the hell. Looks like I have found a Guined button to push. :lol:
Last edited by NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NIN
 

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:15 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:
NIN wrote:The only thing I have on my side is a strong comprehension of the english language and a devil-may-care attitude.


So it's all about semantics? You want to ignore the fact that when a player takes a 'dive' he's trying to get the ref to call a penalty that didn't occur, ie. Cheating. (And please, spare me the ctachers mitt reference. The catchers mitt issue is NOT cheating. Why not? Because there's nothing in the baseball rule book that prohibits it, and it's been an accepted piece of baseball for eons).

Now, back to the semantics. The word dive used in a sentence:

In the fight between NIN and EPP, NIN took a dive.

Tell me class, what did NIN do? HE CHEATED!!!!


:lol: I honest to God had no idea that this was such a sensitive issue, but im gald everyone is letting their hate out for me. It's not healthy to keep it all bottled up you know.

I'll debate the finer points of the topic after you have had a moment to calm down. :D
NIN
 

Postby ExPatriatePen on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:29 pm

NIN wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:
NIN wrote:The only thing I have on my side is a strong comprehension of the english language and a devil-may-care attitude.


So it's all about semantics? You want to ignore the fact that when a player takes a 'dive' he's trying to get the ref to call a penalty that didn't occur, ie. Cheating. (And please, spare me the ctachers mitt reference. The catchers mitt issue is NOT cheating. Why not? Because there's nothing in the baseball rule book that prohibits it, and it's been an accepted piece of baseball for eons).

Now, back to the semantics. The word dive used in a sentence:

In the fight between NIN and EPP, NIN took a dive.

Tell me class, what did NIN do? HE CHEATED!!!!


:lol: I honest to God had no idea that this was such a sensitive issue, but im gald everyone is letting their hate out for me. It's not healthy to keep it all bottled up you know.

I'll debate the finer points of the topic after you have had a moment to calm down. :D


No Hate, Just that sometimes I'm given to embellishment or over-emphasising to make my point... :-) :-) :-) (Call it a dive if you want :-) )
Last edited by ExPatriatePen on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:42 pm

Defence21 wrote:The reason for a diving penalty is because it is unsportsmanlike. Not only is a player making himself and his team look stupid, he also is unjustly trying to get a penalty called against an opposing player -- thus cheating. There are many ways to cheat in sports, including hockey. Illegal sticks, large goal pads, having an untied jersey, and diving. They all give an unfair advantage to a team. Tripping, hooking, holding, etc also are cheating. That is why there are penalties for them. If a player can get a penalty for hooking, why can't a player get a penalty when he tried to make it look like he was hooked, when he really wasn't?


Players dive head first into the boards in order to get calls. That is diving, and that is cheating but it is also hard work and gutsy. Never will you see a refferee not make a call after someone appears to get hit from behind with so much force that he goes flying into the boards head first (THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLE HIT AT ALL). How about when a player moves another players stick up into his own face. that isn't drawing a penalty THAT IS DIVING. It is cheating but it works and a ref will never call a dive on that play ever. Or when a player gets thrown around like a rag doll or when a players goes flying into the boards. Those are hard earned dives and they are cheating.

Everytime Forsberg catches a players stick between the shins and locks it there and flops that is a dive but it is never ever going to be called a dive. Instead it is dismissed as "drawing" a penalty. In fast motion it is impossible even for two refs on the ice to pick up all these things and they see what they see and they call it. It happens every single game and yet the term DIVING is actually used to describe a player who is BAD at drawing penalties! Somebody who overreacted to a potential and probable infraction caused by another player is actually branded a "diver" just because he let on alittle too much that he was penalized? Is he cheating? YES and so is all of the players that are "drawing" penalties.

This is why diving is a skill to me. PLayers that are good at it don't even arrouse suspicision from most poeple who are watching the play objectively. That goes for the fans and the refs. There eyes are not any better than ours and they call it like they see for the most part. This is a why home ice is an advantage. The emotion and the WANT for that call cloud the officials judgement. If you have never officiated an intense fast paced hockey game you don't know how hard their jobs are. I can't even imagine what it's like at the NHL level. There are feelings involved and if all the fans get behind a player who dived alot of times that ref is going to see it the same way and ignore the dive and call the penalty.
NIN
 

Postby Sam's Drunk Dog on Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:13 pm

NIN, have you been drinking Spoon's black vodka again?

Image
Sam's Drunk Dog
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,393
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Postby netwolf on Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:11 pm

You guys all realize NIN is posting all this to get a rise out of you right? I'll bet he doesn't even buy into this nonsense, not that I would expect him to admit to that though.

Image
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,378
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am

Postby Jim on Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:14 pm

Apparently someone, NIN, has no idea what diving is. When a guygrabs you, twists you, and then throwss you to the ice... it isn't diving.

What Coby did is called "Drawing a penality"

That might not be Hockey 101... but it is Hockey 201...
Jim
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,731
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby NIN on Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:19 pm

Jim wrote:Apparently someone, NIN, has no idea what diving is. When a guygrabs you, twists you, and then throwss you to the ice... it isn't diving.

What Coby did is called "Drawing a penality"

That might not be Hockey 101... but it is Hockey 201...


You and Net need to read this whole thread before judgeing me.
NIN
 

Next

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


e-mail