At Least the NHL gets it.

I'm going to be honest, I can't even begin to contemplate how there is an apples to apples comparison with soccer here.

If Bishop had stayed down with a broken collarbone, would that have meant the referees were wrong not to stop play? You seem to be suggesting that the fact that Bishop stayed in the game and had negative x-rays proves everything worked here, yet absolutely no one could have known those two things to be true in the moment.

Also, unlike soccer, there isn't exactly a rash of faking injuries in hockey--and certainly not from goalies. This may not have been a serious injury to the extent Bishop would need to be removed from the game, but when's the last time you saw an NHL goalie go down and stay down during dynamic play due to an injury when he wasn't in possession of the puck? This was a highly unusual situation.

A lot of people would argue it's unfair for St. Louis to score a goal there with the opposing goalie incapacitated. Others would argue it's just tough luck for Dallas. Either argument is probably legitimate in hockey, precisely because this is so rare to see. But I bet the latter argument wins out for most.

But in the culture of our sport--unless we're talking about an immediate rebound--there would be very little question that all but the most partisan fans would consider scoring a goal like this unfair. So if a team opted not to score here in soccer, your takeaway would be they are "usurping the authority of the referee and killing play on a non-serious injury?"

 

I very deliberately said "faking injuries" and not "diving" or "simulation." Because my statement is true and the statement you're arguing against would not have been.

A two-handed tomahawk chop in the back, one of the places where goalies have the least amount of padding, and your takeaway is he is "known for faking injuries" because he goes down there? Sure, he's exaggerating the severity of his suffering. But that's a blatant penalty. And there's no video there showing he faked an injury, which again, is different than embellishment or diving.

You use the word "still" as if I need to do so. My point is that I think this is a silly comparison to our sport and a bunch of strange conclusions to make. But you seem set on making them, so I'll leave you to it.

 

My post above did not address the topic?

What are you talking about? I don't have to agree with your premises to engage in discussion. I think you're making strange comparisons that lead to unhelpful conclusions. I am disagreeing with you because I think you're wrong; that doesn't mean I am attacking you.

I don't have a scoreboard where I keep track of how often I disagree with someone. But if you feel like I'm doing that with you an inordinate amount of time, it simply means I think you're often wrong. Nothing more.