ShareThis Page
Referees keeping whistles in pockets when Penguins play |

Referees keeping whistles in pockets when Penguins play

Jonathan Bombulie
| Thursday, December 6, 2018 12:45 p.m
Pittsburgh Penguins center Sidney Crosby (87) and Washington Capitals left wing Alex Ovechkin (8), of Russia, talk with referee Wes McCauley (4) during the third period of an NHL hockey game, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018, in Washington. The Capitals won 2-1.

Over the past few games, the Pittsburgh Penguins power play hasn’t made as big a positive impact on games as the team has grown accustomed to over the past few seasons.

There’s one big reason for that.

It hasn’t had many chances to get to work.

The Penguins still have one of the most effective power plays in the league, ranking eighth with a 24.6 percent success rate, but over the past six games, they’ve only had 12 opportunities, scoring on three of them. They were averaging a little over three power plays per game in the first quarter of the season.

They’ve also only gone on the penalty kill 10 times over the same stretch, so it’s worth wondering if referees have put their whistles away early this season.

If that’s not the case, though, defenseman Jack Johnson thinks it’s up to the Penguins to make sure those numbers turn around.

“I think the onus would be on us to create more power plays, and really how you do that is hang onto the puck in the offensive zone,” Johnson said. “Get them checking with their stick instead of their legs. That’s when you get hooking and holding penalties and things of that nature. I think it’s great that we’ve only had that many penalty kills. It would be great if we could get more power plays.”

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all season long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan at or via Twitter @BombulieTrib.

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.