From my personal point of view - the game has toned down the physical/violent factor considerably when compared to what was the norm back in the 70's, and 80's.
Well that's what I wonder about in a way. Maybe players go after Kronwall after some of his hits because he's always against either skilled players or in general a team's point producers. The job of a top-four dman like Kronwall is to defend against a team's best players. Is the complaint that players shouldn't have to fight after a clean hit on a skilled player unjustified based on the game's history? Because like you said; in the past, if you inflict any kind of harm on a team's point producers then someone would get in your face. Has it always been that way and now all of a sudden we have a league-wide complaint about it that came out of nowhere? If it was that way for Yzerman/Probert-Kocur and Gretzky/McSorley then how or why are people so surprised about a retaliation these days when it happens after a big hit on a team's skilled players?
Now, I'm making a lot of assumptions here but I'm just wondering out loud.
5 on 5 "donnybrooks", and bench clearing brawls were fairly common back then...With todays rules in place, and a shift in the attitude of skill over physicality (courtesy of the Euro influence starting in the early 90's) we are wittnessing the results; skill overrules thuggery, and whenever we see any form of "payback" taking place - many viewers are shocked.
Again - just my personal opinion.
- Hockeymom1960 likes this