It is simply stupid. I am watching Pens-Caps and just now two penalties in a row. They were both called as normal penalties on Prns and they added embellishment to both of them. So in a minute the game went 5-5 to 4-4 to 3-3.

First what's the point? Second if there was an actual penalty then there should be no embellishment. It should only be that is the embellishment was where there was no real penalty.

_________________
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Real Deal James Neal is one of the only guys I've ever seen get called for a standalone embellishment. You actually heard the ref say "fuck you, you're getting an embellishment."

But yes, I agree. The idea is that the foul was still committed, you just exaggerated the extent of it. If you punch me in the face and I feign a heart attack for some reason, you still punched me in the face, you know? Still, it doesn't treat the issue at hand.

_________________

You could go with if you embellish then the penalty that caused it gets negated, but whatever everybody loves 4v4.

THat's what I would do. Embellishment should cancel out original penalty and only the actor serves time.

_________________

Because it's the NHL and nothing ever goes the way they plan, this would probably just mean teams would go to town on hooks and trips knowing that guys would try to draw the penalties and get penalized themselves.

_________________