There is a difference between intent when there is violence in a hockey game vs elsewhere. When two boxers swing at each other in the ring, the intent is clear because that's the game after all. Would they sue each other afterward? No, there is explicit consent to the consequences because that is, after all, the point of the game. In hockey there is also an implicit consent by players to certain degrees of fighting, pushing, cussing, etc., and other forms of violence and assault, which, like it or hate it, does serve a point in the game, typically meant to prevent the opposition from crossing certain boundaries in terms of roughness, especially against star players. This is, after all, why hockey teams have had goons for decades. My point is, from watching the tape, while the actions of the MSU players may have fallen outside the boundary of what is typically consented to among hockey players, i.e., a punch in the head from behind and a modest slash to the arm while down, it is absurd for anyone to to say they think the intent of the MSU players was "pretty clear" beyond anything other than the standard intent of goons in hockey, which is to enforce lines. The fact that immediately prior to the punch Kampfer took a run at, and spilled an MSU player in a pretty violent collision, is default evidence that this is exactly what Tropp and Conboy were trying to do - draw the standar hockey line that a goon might which is to say "you can't do this to our players." Their problem of course, is the way they went about enforcing this intent, crossed the line, and thus they were rightly suspended. But those of you howling that they were "CLEARLY INTENDING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY" in my opinion evidence a general lack of hockey knowledge.