Yes and no. First he embarassed Matheson for sure, then he tried to run infront of the net just infront of the goalie which is a big no-no if you don't have the puck, in which Matheson pushes Pettersson away from the situation marking that's not okay. Later Pettersson passes the puck and Matheson does his body check, probably a bit harder on him because of obvious reasons and getting agitated. Pettersson being built like a shrimp flew into the boards head first because he lacks ice-awarness and don't know how to protect himself, especially in a situation where you must know you just embarrassed a guy in front of thousands of viewers, it's naive to not think he's going to retaliate.
And it's not a knock on smaller players, there have been all different sizes of players that has been succesful but you gotta know how to protect yourself. Especially if you're a smaller guy you gotta know how to behave on ice or like the man in my avatar, be ready to back it up and sometimes get your hands dirty. That's hockey. It's not figure skating with sticks.
We're going to disagree on this.
I'm intentionally not ignoring the first part of your post. Space in front of the goalie is available to any player on either team who attempts to attain and/or hold it. Regardless, none of the play's prior actions should have bearing on the evolution of the play and legitimacy of any transgressions. Embarrassing Matheson? The logical inference is if a player, e.g., scores a hat trick, thereafter the opponents have license for head shots? I truly respect your posting more than that.
The initial hit into the boards was 10,000% legal and acceptable. But Matheson raising his left elbow to his ear and forcibly using his left arm to intentionally leverage Petterson to the ice
while in a defenseless position, in particular after he had long-since released the puck, is the issue (and IMO, what caused the penalty, injury, and suspension.
If the puck was in their skates still, or pinned to the boards, I'd have no issue. The play was Pronger-esque.
As far as protecting yourself, I suppose if Pettersson was a right-handed shot, he could have butt-ended Matheson in the jaw, nose, or eye during the initial legal check, but why should he have to?
It's naive to think he's not going to retaliate? I've seen far more embarrassing plays result in no retaliation. I have no issue with within-the-rules retaliation, whether it be on the scoresheet with counting stats by a skill player, or via legal checks, uncalled cross-checks kept to the torso, etc., or squaring off. By the "retaliation for embarrassment" logic, the Sabres the past few years should have started the 3rd period carrying pitchforks and maces instead of sticks, given how rampantly, routinely, and repeatedly they've been outplayed the past 4-5 years.
And yes, I love physical hockey, and don't believe hockey is figure skating with sticks.