I thought it was a questionable embellishment call at first, but when they showed the replay on the big screen, it certainly did look like the RIT player (I can't remember now if it was Golberg or Powell) added a big flop almost at the same instant that the Bentley player put his hand over the shoulder and didn't appear to have put that much pressure on yet. It is really hard to determine that for sure when it's that close, but it did look like he was trying to sell the hold to the refs.
The intent of the embellishment penalty is accomplishing its intent. It is punishing the embellisher's team by taking away what would have otherwise been a power play because there really was a penalty coming. I personally don't see the need for it. If there really is a penalty, who cares if the offended party makes an a** (or a soccer player) of himself acting like he's just been shot? How is that hurting the other team or giving any kind of advantage to his team?
On the other hand, the diving penalty makes some sense. It's the execution that frustrates me. It was supposed to punish divers for creating the illusion of a penalty that didn't really happen, but the refs from the very beginning wouldn't call it by itself, thereby defeating the purpose of the rule.
