The Penguins appeared to be getting a power play at the end of the first period of Wednesday's 5-2 loss to the Flyers after Garnet Hathaway skated through the faceoff dot prior to a draw and bizarrely waved his stick up and around behind him, clipping Sidney Crosby in the jaw:
Hathaway high sticked Crosby before the draw, but Crosby was ALSO penalized for embellishment, we play 4 on 4.... pic.twitter.com/QcsGi9wg7J
Easy high-sticking call on Hathaway. Whether it was intentional or not doesn't matter. A player is expected to be in control of his stick. But after the officials conferred, they decided to hit Crosby with an embellishment minor for the way he dropped to the ice after.
My take? I generally don't have an issue with the existence of an embellishment penalty when there is a legitimate call on an opposing player ... and I don't quite understand the argument people have that you inherently can't have both penalties on the same play. The word "embellishment" isn't simply another word for "dive." The word literally means "fictitious addition" ... key word being addition, as in, adding on to the actual infraction to sell the call.
That all being said ... this? This isn't that. When a guy is lining up for a faceoff, that's probably the one time he's not expecting to get clocked in the face. And leaning forward like that, he's probably not going to be the most stable, either. For an object -- that is coming from below Crosby, he can't even see what it is -- to fly up and hit him in the face when play isn't even happening? Of course there's going to be a huge recoil, and maybe he's going to drop.
Crosby was clearly at least a little annoyed still over the call postgame. He was asked about the physical play, and volunteered on his own, "I don't know how I end up with embellishment. It's hard to understand."
Dan Muse, very early in this season when I asked a question about officiating, made a blanket statement that he wasn't ever going to comment on officiating matters, a stance he's slowly started to change his mind on, and he's been speaking his mind when warranted. And on this call, he seemed more irritated than just about any other call against the Penguins this season.
"We don't have a single embellishment all year," he said. "Sidney Crosby doesn't have an embellishment in 21 seasons. The stick's in his face. (The refs) take both of them. I disagree on that strongly. Not one for our team all season. We didn't come into the series to start now. Our guys have done a good job with that. And Sid doesn't embellish."
THE ASYLUM
Crosby hit with first embellishment
The Penguins appeared to be getting a power play at the end of the first period of Wednesday's 5-2 loss to the Flyers after Garnet Hathaway skated through the faceoff dot prior to a draw and bizarrely waved his stick up and around behind him, clipping Sidney Crosby in the jaw:
Easy high-sticking call on Hathaway. Whether it was intentional or not doesn't matter. A player is expected to be in control of his stick. But after the officials conferred, they decided to hit Crosby with an embellishment minor for the way he dropped to the ice after.
My take? I generally don't have an issue with the existence of an embellishment penalty when there is a legitimate call on an opposing player ... and I don't quite understand the argument people have that you inherently can't have both penalties on the same play. The word "embellishment" isn't simply another word for "dive." The word literally means "fictitious addition" ... key word being addition, as in, adding on to the actual infraction to sell the call.
That all being said ... this? This isn't that. When a guy is lining up for a faceoff, that's probably the one time he's not expecting to get clocked in the face. And leaning forward like that, he's probably not going to be the most stable, either. For an object -- that is coming from below Crosby, he can't even see what it is -- to fly up and hit him in the face when play isn't even happening? Of course there's going to be a huge recoil, and maybe he's going to drop.
Crosby was clearly at least a little annoyed still over the call postgame. He was asked about the physical play, and volunteered on his own, "I don't know how I end up with embellishment. It's hard to understand."
Dan Muse, very early in this season when I asked a question about officiating, made a blanket statement that he wasn't ever going to comment on officiating matters, a stance he's slowly started to change his mind on, and he's been speaking his mind when warranted. And on this call, he seemed more irritated than just about any other call against the Penguins this season.
"We don't have a single embellishment all year," he said. "Sidney Crosby doesn't have an embellishment in 21 seasons. The stick's in his face. (The refs) take both of them. I disagree on that strongly. Not one for our team all season. We didn't come into the series to start now. Our guys have done a good job with that. And Sid doesn't embellish."
Want to participate in our comments?
Want an ad-free experience?
Become a member, and enjoy premium benefits!
We’d love to have you!