For throwing someone to the ice, these jump to mind:
Of course those are just a couple of very recent cases. I'm sure there have been a bunch of others if we dig into the archives.
Precedent is not an issue and neither is finding an explicit rule.
The NHL's ability to issue supplemental discipline applies to any violation of the playing rules. Throwing a punch or getting in a fight is a violation of the playing rules, and the refs formalized that by giving him penalties on the play.
The NHL isn't required to use precedent to issue their rulings. The factors that go into their judgments are explicitly laid out in the CBA -- use of force/violence, resulting injury, repeat offender status, game context, and any other general miscellaneous factors that fit into the puzzle. Precedent is not one of those.
The NHLPA can only file an appeal to a neutral arbitrator if the suspension is for 6+ games (and they have done this successfully on Wilson's behalf in the past) but even then, his multi-repeat offender status makes that very, very, very hard to justify. It's hard to imagine a scenario where he could successfully argue precedent matters at all.
Wilson wasn't given a match penalty, but a 10-minute misconduct. If he had been given a match penalty this issue likely wouldn't have blown up to such a degree, because he'd have likely been suspended for that penalty alone. At a minimum it would have triggered a more thorough review of the incident.
Part of the reason this has become such a thing is that he was lightly penalized by the refs (allowed to return to the game and then score a key goal) and was barely penalized at all by the league.
Basically, yes. I don't think anyone's issue is with the fine for punching Buchnevich. It's the non-action on the totality of the sequence and especially the Panarin slam that stirred up the hornet's nest.
