I love fighting in hockey, I love UFC, I love any number of violent activities. When the opponent gets knocked out in the UFC, I want the ref to safeguard the guy who is out on his feet and stop the fight. Is that pearl clutching? Loving violence between combatants engaged within a rough set of rules, and a code/ethics that seem to cover the gaps is one thing (that maybe is of questionable morality, no doubt). But when players do things intending to simply render the other player hors de combat, that goes far beyond the game, far beyond the code the players operate within. If Wilson had spun Panarin around and laid his face open with 5-6 punches, no one is complaining (except maybe Panarin and/or his wife). Look at it this way, if Panarin had not rotated a few degrees, his head slaps the ice pretty damn hard - maybe he bleeds all over the ice. Wilson would have been suspended just because of the optics. But I don't believe that "no harm, no foul" should mean he escapes penalty there. It was an an attempt to injure, and it's not pearl clutching to recognize that - even for a cave man that loves violence that fits (loosely) within the framework of the rules.