With respect to the recent suspensions and our, as fans/observers, wish that there was more consistency, we're not wrong to feel that way. We see something live, or on TV, or see a clip after. We see it through the glasses that are tinted in favour of the team we are rooting for (let's face it, there are very few neutral observers on here or Twitter). We compare one incident to another, see a very different level of punishment meted and think the league is clueless.
Now I'm no fan of Mr. Branch's and the league does all kinds of stuff we may find worth of a good head shake. So, not in their defense, we have to realize that we see what we see. A submission by a team includes the official's report and any medical opinion on his condition and potential recovery. Keep in mind it's always the home team doctor (even if it's a visiting player) who makes the initial report. We don't see any of that. One can't measure the consistency of a process based on maybe 1/3 of the evidence.
Having said that, the Dhillon fork job to the nuts (no call on the ice) certainly appeared like an attempt to injure and was not a hockey play. As it turned out, Gross was not injured on the play and stayed in the game. Perhaps Oshawa management decided not to pursue that with the league, thinking perhaps better to save it for something more serious. Beyond automatic suspensions, the league doesn't go looking through tapes for suspendable offenses, teams who feel their player has been wronged do that.
The Salinitri punch to the back of Rossi's head (2 min roughing) was not a hockey play. Was it retaliation for Rossi coming in late on Keyser, for which he was penalized already, maybe? 6 games seems quite harsh but we're witness to about 1/3 of the 'evidence'. How about we wait until Rossi returns to play before we decide if it's a "fair" penalty or not.