ShareThis Page
Critical penalty kill swings momentum in favor of Penguins |

Critical penalty kill swings momentum in favor of Penguins

Jonathan Bombulie
Pittsburgh Penguins goaltender Casey DeSmith gloves a shot during the first period of an NHL hockey game against the New York Rangers in Pittsburgh, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2019.

At the moment New York Rangers defenseman Neal Pionk reached up near his eye and saw blood on his fingers, it was clear the game was on the line.

Pionk had been injured by an accidental high stick from Pittsburgh Penguins captain Sidney Crosby in the waning seconds of the second period, drawing a double minor. The score was tied 3-3.

By the time the first four minutes of the third period elapsed, momentum was going to swing violently in favor of one team or the other.

It swung in favor of the Penguins, who killed the penalty and went on to a 6-5 victory Sunday afternoon.

“Anytime you kill off four minutes, especially in the third period, it’s huge,” defenseman Brian Dumoulin said.

The Rangers attempted seven shots on the power play. One went wide, three were stopped by goalie Casey DeSmith and three were blocked – two by Kris Letang and one by Chad Ruhwedel. Matt Cullen went 3-0 in the faceoff circle.

The Penguins scored three times in the next seven minutes to take over the game.

“The guys took away all the seams,” DeSmith said. “They really like hitting those cross-ice seams, and I think the guys did a great job taking that away. Blocked a couple shots and made some good clears, for sure.”

After the game, Rangers coach David Quinn said Pionk’s injury is not believed to be serious.

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all season long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
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.