This is a farcical false narrative.
The idea here is not one of strategy or relative value to their team or the score or how many minutes the players play.
This boils down to one thing and one thing only, consent.
In the blowout Marchand forced the issue with a an unwilling ( by action and history) lars eller because he thought ( as did I) that eller was trying to show the bruins up in a blowout. Whether he was or not is moot, but if Marchand thought that eller was trying to show him up, he has the prerogative to settle for this transgression.
But he also has an obligation to do it without suckering the guy. You think a guy is showing you up, square up FIRST then throw.
Now if Marchand thinks that his perception that eller was trying to show him up removes ellers prerogative to decline, then by JUMPING an unknowing eller, eller has at least an equivalent beef that Marchand, instead of squaring up first has ALSO taken a liberty.
That being the case eller now has reason to belive that if he wants to push the issue that Marchand has to accept in order to atone for getting the jump on eller. He doesn't have to fight Tom wilson, this is a beef between eller and Marchand. If eller wants to let it slide, that's his prerogative. If he doesn't and does want to seek redress, Marchand has to answer.
He didn't.
Any other rationalization leads to the idea that you can play as loosely goosey with your stick or run anyone in the numbers and then decide to hide behind your reticence to settle.
The players are clear, they unanimously reject this idea.
If you do not take liberties, the same idea protects you almost completely. You don't have to fear some third liner is going to force the issue with your first line winger. But if this first line winger is perceived to have taken liberties, he no longer has the right to refuse.
Easy, peasy.
