Islanders notebook: Bailey believes no injury intent on Gryba's check
Bailey: No injury intent
New York Islanders center Josh Bailey didn't watch much of Game 1 of the Eastern Conference playoff series between the Ottawa Senators and Montreal Canadiens.
But he said he saw enough of the vicious check thrown by Ottawa's Eric Gryba on Montreal's Lars Eller to know this:
Bailey doesn't believe Gryba meant to injure Eller, who suffered a concussion and facial fractures and lost a tooth Thursday night.
“I don't think there are too many guys who would try to hurt someone intentionally,” Bailey said. “I'm sure that (Gryba) was just trying to finish his check.”
Islanders right wing Kyle Okposo said it looked like Eller “was out when his head hit the ice.”
“That might have caused more blood (loss). That was a scary hit.”
Eller left the ice on a stretcher, spent the night in a Montreal hospital and was released Friday. Gryba was suspended two games by the NHL, but officials cleared him of malicious intent.
Capuano said he's not surprised Sidney Crosby returned to the Penguins' lineup Friday night. Actually, Capuano assumed Crosby would play Wednesday.
“He's a tough kid,” said Capuano, noting that Crosby got to his feet and skated off the ice March 30 when he suffered a broken jaw in a game against the Islanders. “When you are a great player in this league, you want to play. You want to help your teammates.”
Among the 15 players scratched by the Islanders was center Marty Reasoner, whose check of the Penguins' Jussi Jokinen sparked a brief scrum near the end of Wednesday's game.
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 â 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.