http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTYRjtnzjsg
1.25 mark ,,,,1.38,,,,,2.41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1basz-WWITg
0.01 mark,,,,, 1.08 mark,,,,,2.03 mark,,,2.12 mark,,,,
Took me 10 minutes to put that together and that's just a small sample one 1 player..
Do I really need to post the Patchs and Miller hits?
Okay, so I'll give you a general response and I'll also address each clip in the video.
The first video (which, important to note, was made over 4 years ago before truly strict penalties were being given out):
1. That's a high hit. Today, he'd most likely be hit with a game or two based on the fact that he hit him up high and there was not an injury on the play.
2. I'm not sure what you're talking about there...the fact he instigated the fight? Those aren't concussive blows guy. That would never get a suspension.
3. The last one is borderline...if you watch the angle not directly behind the glass, you can see he does not hit the guy in the head on the check (not the principal point of contact), but he does finish high at the end. Winchester knows the contact is coming and tries to reverse it and his head hits the glass and comes back where Chara raises the arms up and makes contact with his head. No doubt he finishes the check a bit high, but I doubt that's suspension worthy even today.
The second video:
1. That would definitely get a suspension today. It might have back then had Grabo not come back and had a monster game. I remember it well. I was at that game
2. That may have gotten a suspension nowadays. Giroux puts himself off balance and in a bad position though by trying to stop up and protect Chara from getting to the puck with his back. That's a dangerous tactic and while Chara should have let up more, they were a good distance from the boards and I really don't believe that was truly malicious.
3. ...that would never get a suspension or a penalty...techincally it's from behind, but it's on the half boards where there isn't glass. Guys take advantage of being in this part of the rink all the time. No one would get a suspension for such a harmless incident.
4. It's a slight slew foot but he does not finish him in the back and it's not even close to resulting in any sort of injury. May receive a warning or a fine today, but I sort of doubt that.
In summary, you've shared 7 different instances of where you thought Chara was being dirty. In a couple, I have agreed, and I think they would get a suspension today. The fact is though, those hits were at a time when not nearly as many suspensions were being given out and you really had to put someone in peril to even get a call from Colin Campbell. If they happened nowadays, I'd have to admit it was inconsistent enforcement by the league, but not back then.
You also didn't read my response because you put together something that proves the Bruins have made borderline, illegal plays, but nothing which shows bias. You could show me 3,000 clips of where you felt the Bruins were dirty, but if you don't show other instances of suspensions being given out to other teams on plays that are significantly similar, it doesn't prove anything. You did EXACTLY what I criticize these conspiracy theorists for. No conspiracy theory has ever been proven in ten minutes of research and that's exactly my issue. It's a kneejerk, instinctual, rival fan reaction and no one that I have seen yet has actually gone all the way to show where the bias lies.
The Chara on Pacioretty hit is iffy. There isn't any proof that Chara meant to put Pacioretty into the corner of the glass like that. He rubs him out along the boards and it is late, but I really don't think that was an intentional play. Today, it might get some games, but if I remember correctly, that was when Shanahan first took over and he wasn't laying down the law like he is now.
The Lucic on Miller hit is one I have to concede. I have no clue how he got away with that. Looch isn't the most finesse of skaters, but I don't believe that was unintentional. I still don't know how he didn't get anything, but I'm not going to act like it's the first time I've been puzzled by a decision (as none of us are; you're not going to ever agree with all that anyone decides in these cases). I'm not going to put a conspiracy on something just because I don't agree or understand it though.
I will say the Bruins have made some questionable hits over the last few years. I will also say that I have seen countless others from around the league that are also questionable. Throwing some video clips at me and inferring "welp, this obviously proves they're a bias" especially when most of the clips are from when the precedent was significantly different does not prove your point. If fans are interested in actually proving a bias they should truly put some effort into it, not ten minutes.
I'd love to watch it, and if there was actually a point beyond just blanket statements and insistent subjective opinion, I'd be impressed and would change my mind on the matter. Whatever pride I have for my team does not prevent me from admitting to fact when it's actually there and shown.
