Pens' Crosby, Rangers' Jagr dismiss talk
Respective team captains Sidney Crosby and Jaromir Jagr downplayed an apparent verbal sparring session during Game 2 on Sunday. Jagr declined to comment on what he said to Crosby, whose take on any word exchange was dismissive.
"Just ask him," Crosby said. "I wasn't the one talking."
Penguins right wing Adam Hall did not plan to bank off the boards his first goal of the 2008 Stanley Cup playoffs. After a cross-check penalty to defenseman Hal Gill had expired, Hall fired a puck from the Penguins' zone, and it caromed off the boards into an open net with 17 seconds remaining.
"I didn't exactly want to ice it," Hall said of his fourth career playoff goal. "You just want to get it off the wall and relieve the pressure. It was a pretty intense time."
Penguins left wing Gary Roberts missed a fourth consecutive game due to a groin injury. Other Penguins' scratches included forwards Jeff Taffe and Kris Beech, defenseman Darryl Sydor and goaltender Dany Sabourin. Each of those four players has yet to appear in the 2008 playoffs.
Rangers center Martin Straka said he did not hear an official's whistle prior to pushing a puck under Penguins goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury with 4:14 remaining in regulation. Had the goal counted, the Rangers would have tied the score, 1-1. Renney said the call to waive off the goal was good.
"I thought the whistle had blown before I saw any kind of indication of a goal," Renney said.
Click here to launch.
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.