ShareThis Page

Pens' penalty sets early tone for Isles

| Tuesday, May 7, 2013, 9:54 p.m.

UNIONDALE, N.Y. — The Islanders were unhappy with some of the calls in the first three games of their Stanley Cup playoff series against the Penguins.

They particularly were upset about a holding penalty drawn by Penguins star Sidney Crosby on Brian Strait in overtime of Game 3. Chris Kunitz netted the game-winner 33 seconds after that penalty.

“I don't normally comment on a call. I just hope they're consistent,” Islanders coach Jack Capuano said after the game. “Mark Streit was called on one and at the other end of the ice, then on the same play, there was no call.”

Capuano's message seemed to be received by the officials, as the Islanders earned their first power play 1:26 into Game 4 on Tuesday night. In a reversal from Game 3, it was New York's star drawing a questionable penalty, as John Tavares sold a hooking call on Evgeni Malkin.

The Islanders didn't score, but the tone was set. New York got the first three power plays of the game.

The Islanders finally took advantage in the second period after Matt Cooke was called for goalie interference. Just 31 seconds later, Tavares tipped in a shot from the point by Streit to give the Islanders a 2-1 lead.

It was just the second goal on 15 power-play opportunities in the series for the Islanders. The Penguins' success on the penalty kill was a surprise, considering the unit ranked 25th in the league.

The Penguins stationed Brooks Orpik and Douglas Murray in front of the net primarily on penalty kills with the intention of cutting down on the Islanders' room to operate.

The officials drew the ire of the Nassau Coliseum crowd, which was incensed by an embellishment penalty on Colin McDonald early in the third period after he was held by Malkin. Instead of a man-advantage, the teams skated four-on-four for two minutes.

The Penguins stayed out of the penalty box for the rest of the game, but it didn't matter.

Dan Duggan is a freelance writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.