Share This Page

Pens' Therrien fed up with diving accusations

Penguins coach Michel Therrien issued a response Saturday to perceived accusations by the New York Rangers that Penguins captain Sidney Crosby takes dives to influence referees.

"That's enough," Therrien said following the Penguins' practice yesterday at Mellon Arena.

Alleged flopping by Crosby became an issue again in the wake of his drawing an interference penalty on the Rangers' Martin Straka at 16:40 of the third period of Game 1 on Friday night.

The Penguins cashed in on the subsequent power play with 1:41 remaining in regulation for what turned out to be the game-winning goal in a 5-4 triumph.

Rangers coach Tom Renney declined to address the call directly after the game.

"Did you see it?" Renney said. "Draw your own conclusions."

Rangers forward Brendan Shanahan assessed the call as "weak" and said Crosby "embellished it."

Crosby's postgame take was that he tripped over Straka's "stick or his skate."

Renney had made a pre-series issue of his concerns about a "penchant for embellishing and contesting every call," without naming names.

Straka was assessed a misconduct at 20:00 of the third period Friday night for voicing his displeasure about the interference penalty.

Game 2 is set for 2 p.m. today at Mellon Arena.

"I'm disappointed," Therrien said. "We all know what Tom Renney is trying to do. He tried to do it before the series. He's tried to get the attention of the referees, complaining about the penalty at the end of the game.

"As far as I'm concerned, as far as we're all concerned, it's not even close."

Renney wondered what all the fuss was about when it was his turn at the podium yesterday.

"I don't recall ever saying that Sidney himself was an issue," Renney said. "What I do recall suggesting is that, before every series, you meet the supervisor of officiating and talk about the rules in general and I think, (Friday night), by my answers, I didn't suggest that anybody was outside the rules of the game.

"I left that for others to conclude."

Shanahan clarified his postgame comments yesterday.

"We certainly didn't come into the room after the game, throw down our equipment and say we got hosed by the refs, so I'm kind of surprised Therrien is making it a big issue," Shanahan said. "I'm actually really surprised, because we aren't (making it an issue).

"If he wants to bring the referees' attention to it, (that's) fine."

Therrien issued his "that's enough" edict in response to a question about the benefits of having Crosby and Evgeni Malkin playing at a high level at the same time.

"We know what (Renney's) trying to do, but I'm convinced the referees don't buy into those things, the league doesn't buy into those things," Therrien said. "Why don't we give credit to a guy who will play into traffic, who will get a shot• Sidney Crosby received a shot in the face in the first period by (the Rangers' Sean) Avery.

"Sometimes, (Crosby's) going to draw a penalty, sometimes there's not going to be any penalty. But he's going to keep going there, and eventually, he'll draw a penalty if he keeps going there.

"He knows. He's not going to go to the outside, that's not the way he is. He's not going to take the easy road. He's going to take the tough road to try to succeed. And on that play (in Game 1), if he didn't get hooked, we're probably going to go on a breakaway. And he drew a penalty.

"I'm kind of disappointed (Renney) complained about it. Enough is enough; that's enough."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.