I think Chris Simon has a huge point when he says the stars get preferential treatment.  Simon has 8 suspensions all time, and his 8th was 30 games for stomping on someones foot.  Pronger's 8th suspension results in 8 games for the same thing. 

The violence has simply moved to the feet (skates) instead of uptop.  Back in the day, each team had at least two "fencers."  What was sad was that most of those guys had real talent, i.e. Glenn "The Swordsman" Anderson.

I think Azfan would agree that the view from ice level is completely different. I won't say I'm personally for or against fighting but the threat of getting your butt kicked does cut down on the stick work and cheap shots. Believe it or not there is a code on the ice. Well, there used to be anyway. Once hucksters like Gary Bettman took over the game things changed dramatically, and thats just plain sad.

Beteman had nothing to do with it.

That "code" is idiotic.  It doesn't make a lot of sense.  Players seem to think they need to retaliate against someone who gave them a good clean hit too often.  It's weak.  Maybe they are just embarrassed they got their bell rung so they need to show how much of a "man" they are.  They need to man up and take a clean hit.

Beteman had nothing to do with it.

That "code" is idiotic.  It doesn't make a lot of sense.  Players seem to think they need to retaliate against someone who gave them a good clean hit too often.  It's weak.  Maybe they are just embarrassed they got their bell rung so they need to show how much of a "man" they are.  They need to man up and take a clean hit.

Of course the league cares. They have taken precautions to make violence less severe. Fining and suspensions have gotten tougher as well as various rules like you can't leave the ice when you check a puck carrier. I don't even really think the players care, obviously, they know it happens, and they also know it can be a great motivational tool for their team.   

if they get rid of the instigator (I know I spelled it wrong) penalty it would change things dramatically and cheap shots will be eliminated

I am curious to understand the logic behind that.

Seems to me, that if the instigator penalty were to go away, that would mean there would be more retaliatory penalties.  And thus, MORE cheap shots as they could get away with more.

I hear you and can completely respect that you played on a professional level.  I am merely an observer who has never been down on the ice apart from broomball in college.  And the highest level of team sport I played was on my collage water polo team.  (Not quite as brutal as hockey, unless you include the 1956 Hungry-USSR Olympic match)  And I was only good enough to be the last guy on the bench.

It seems to me that cheap shot guys are always going to try and dish out the cheap shot when no one is looking.  Not sure how to stop that.  I thought the 2nd ref might help, but a lot still goes on unpunished.   But I still don't like the idea of the players policing themselves.  That is nearly always not very impartial at all.

I have always felt that the Refs should really crack down on all the physical penalties they can.  Yes, there will be a LOT of annoying penalties.  Players and fans will likely bitch and moan.  But if it is kept up, players are smart enough to know what they can and cannot get away with.  They will adjust.  And the penalties will decline.  At least, that is my theory.  You don't think hockey players would adjust?  I think they would because when I watch the international game, I just don't see the cheap shots nearly as often as in the N American game.  Internationally, they kick players out of the game, and the next one for fighting.  Not just for 10 minutes or even a single game misconduct.