Click here to submit your question

Q: What a great problem to have, choosing between a now-healthy Gary Roberts or a perhaps-gimpy Max Talbot. It would seem the hard edge to Roberts' game will be quite helpful in a matchup with Philadelphia. Do you see it that way as well, or think that perhaps someone else sits if Talbot is able to play?

Marty Graff, Dresher, Pa.

MOLINARI: Talbot's optimism aside, it's a little early to pronounce him ready for Game 1 of the Eastern Conference final Friday at Mellon Arena. After all, he has yet to practice with the team since breaking his right foot blocking a shot in Game 3 of the second round against New York. That could change as early as today, but Talbot still will have to prove that he can cope with the pain caused by his fracture, and that it won't impede his performance.

If he is able to dress for the opener against the Flyers, coach Michel Therrien and his staff will have a difficult decision to make when piecing together their lineup. Clearly, having Talbot's high-energy style and excellent penalty-killing is a plus, but clearing room for him wouldn't be easy.

Sitting Roberts wouldn't make sense; a physical series like the one the Penguins are facing is when he should be at his most valuable. Putting Georges Laraque in street clothes would be a high-risk move because there is always potential for mayhem any time these teams meet, even though fighting is relatively rare during the playoffs. Adam Hall certainly has done nothing to merit losing his job since stepping in for Roberts after he got a groin injury during Round 1 against Ottawa.

Obviously, some forward will lose his spot in the lineup if Talbot is able to return by the end of the week, but it won't be on merit. Fact is, getting contributions, on the scoresheet and elsewhere, from all four lines is one of the primary reasons the Penguins are the only team to lose just one game so far in these playoffs.

Q: During Sunday's game, the announcers commented that Ryan Malone should've received a double-minor for high-sticking Chris Drury. Did the officials miss this? Or could they have ruled that Michal Rozsival caused the injury since his hitting Malone's stick caused it to cut Drury?

Kevin Ellstrom, North Wales, Pa.

MOLINARI: It's unlikely that all four officials missed Malone's stick catching Drury in the face, since it seems as if 17,000 fans, a few dozen players and coaches and a national TV audience saw it. And if they didn't see it at first, they certainly became aware of it after Drury began to practically spurt blood from his wound, leaving behind enough that the ice crew needed a few minutes to remove all traces of it from the playing surface.

There was no official explanation for the non-call in that situation, but televised replays made it pretty clear that contact by Rozsival is what caused Malone's stick to go up. While Rule 60.1 mandates that players "must be in control and responsible for their stick" at all times, the dynamics change when a third party is involved. (Just as they do when a defenseman knocks an attacking forward into his goaltender, as opposed to the forward initiating contact with the goalie on his own.)

If not for Rozsival's involvement, Malone absolutely would have merited a double-minor, because Rule 60.3 calls for such a penalty when a high-stick causes an injury, even if it is not done maliciously. Then again, if not for Rozsival making contact with Malone, there's no reason to think Malone would have struck Drury in the first place.

The real twist in this situation is that, with 78 seconds left in regulation, Drury received a double-minor for high-sticking Malone, giving the Penguins an opportunity to manufacture the series-winning goal on the power play. While they failed to do so, they did generate momentum that carried through the overtime and, in the opinion of many players, was the major factor in the surge that culminated in Marian Hossa's series-ending goal at 7:10 of the extra period.