I'm old school too, and I firmly believe hockey rinks are for the game of hockey. Pulling off an opponent's helmet and wailing away on his or her head, causing a broken nose and concussion, is not hockey. It is
battery.
While hockey is a fast contact sport, where the risk of injury is always present, I have never seen a person waive their right to due process and protection under the criminal justice system.
The fight that started this thread is not a legal hockey maneuver. Battery is battery. If you deem the rink to be a "no-law" zone, then where do you draw the line? What if the offender had kicked the player in the head with his ice skates -- maybe severing an artery in the process? What if he caused permanent brain damage or death? What if he had a spike in the end of his stick used to injure opponents? Are there no circumstances where the criminal justice system gets involved?
I say, if there's intent to injure, it's a crime.
I'd also say that if the officials would take a hard line at the little stuff--minor unsportsmanlike conduct, hooks, trips, late hits, roughing, snowing the goalie, hits from behind, etc., and called all this consistently across hockey, teams would not feel a need to try to intimidate or fight when their opponent did something cheap. Teams that play cheap would be killing 5-on-3's. Hard to win games that way.
As I said earlier, I don't want to see hockey turn into a lawyer love-fest. I'd rather see hockey police it's own. But incidents like this--which are all too common--are a sign that "policing our own" is failing. Unfortunately, it's gonna take criminal cases, big money law suits, and more paralyzing injuries to wake people up enough to demand real changes.