I've always thought that Chara knew exactly what he was doing, who he was hitting and what he was hitting him into, I don't buy the "I didn't know who I was hitting" or "I didn't know the stancion was there" ******** from him. Your a ****ing Norris trophy winning defenceman, if your confused about where you are on the ice at any given moment you should take up another sport. Than being said, all of this could have been averted had the NHL just done the right thing and suspend him, nothing crazy like 20 games, but I think 2-5 games and all parties would be satisfied. Than again nothing Campbell and his team of muppets did actually surprises me anymore. Good riddance.
Wouldn't it be amazing if they did lay charges, they say one thing that pissed of Chara and he punches somebody /does something out of rage that gets him charged for something else.
Chara has played in the NHL for 13 years. He could, quite literally, seriously injure somebody on every shift. The disciplinary hearing he had with the NHL was his first ever. The guy learned to control his temper a long, long time ago.
The only reason IMO why anyone wants an investigation because there was no suspension. People want some kind of justice, I think had Chara gotten a one game suspension, this would have been over last year.
The only reason IMO why anyone wants an investigation because there was no suspension. People want some kind of justice, I think had Chara gotten a one game suspension, this would have been over last year.
To everyone out there...
A 1 -2 game suspension is a slap on the wrist, and it says that it may have been an accient...
And what is a 1 game suspension? (break someone's neck and get a 1 game suspension? you've got to be kidding me).
Almost killing a player = 1-2 game suspension?
The NHL ****ed UP big time 'cause they didn't know what to do...they knew (if they followed hockey) that Chara was after Pacioretty for awhile...after that silly shove (Chara intentionally injured pacioretty...it was NO ACCIDENT...I'll re-write it...IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT...he went after Pacioretty like a hitman out of pure revenge and then acted all innocent afterwards in interview, aka, LYING).
Pacioretty missed the rest of the regular season AND playoffs.
Chara should have missed the rest of the regular season AND playoffs, as well.
Pacioretty's neck was broken and was punished even more by witnessing Chara go on with his life in the NHL...
Pacioretty was targeted by Chara ever since the shove to his ego...revenge was on his mind ever since and he almost killed a player (the player he targeted, not just any player). There's not one doubt in my mind that he was seeking revenge.
Colin Campbell helped the Bruins cheat and win a Cup, as simple as that.
It's shameful for the Habs organization but not for the police investigation, it's shameful that nobody in this org had the cojones to arm themselves and beat the **** out of Boston. Even non-fighters like Henri Richard and an elf like Yvan Cournoyer would have jumped on the throat of any Bruins players following this. Because these guys had the killer instinct and respect for their comrades in arms contrary to the kitties that constitutes the Habs roster at this point in times.
this whole investigation thing is really all about sending a big message to the nhl. If you don't take care of your business " we will "
there is not enough proof that Chara did know exactly where he was, who he was chasing and all that it's a 50-50 call. You don't put people in jail on 50-50 but they do become a person of interest long after that.
Now the NHL has rules. the fact that the on ice ref gave chara a 5 min and game misconduct should have sent a BIG message to the league.
The FACT that the league is the one that refused to act by handing out a 1-3 game suspension is the Whole PROBLEM. It smells of interference by a third party to protect his player. "No proof"sure, but man it really SMELLS.
So the cops want to send a message to the NHL.
" Fail to act again" and we will go that one step more next time and the player will have to answer to a judge.
this whole investigation thing is really all about sending a big message to the nhl. If you don't take care of your business " we will "
there is not enough proof that Chara did know exactly where he was, who he was chasing and all that it's a 50-50 call. You don't put people in jail on 50-50 but they do become a person of interest long after that.
Now the NHL has rules. the fact that the on ice ref gave chara a 5 min and game misconduct should have sent a BIG message to the league.
The FACT that the league is the one that refused to act by handing out a 1-3 game suspension is the Whole PROBLEM. It smells of interference by a third party to protect his player. "No proof"sure, but man it really SMELLS.
So the cops want to send a message to the NHL.
" Fail to act again" and we will go that one step more next time and the player will have to answer to a judge.
So once again. Where do you draw the line? Gomez shoved kelly from behind and chris kelly went head first into the goal post and fractured his face. His injury could have been worse, or been nothing at all as that play happens alot when someone is trying to backcheck an opposing player. The post, just like the stanchion is part of the "ice". Does gomez go on trial now? There was a penalty on the play, the act of gomez "driving" kelly's face first into the post was deemed a penalty there for he was guilty, right?
Or do we go back to Hal Gill running someone into the stanchion in montreal during the 09/10 season in montreal where the fans went crazy after the check... Should someone press charges on attempt to injure?
Or even the vicious boarding on mark eaton by no one other than Pacioretty himself? I mean, You want to talk about intention? You want to talk about KNOWING what your doing when doing it?
Look,
The outcome of the chara hit was unfortunate. But when you start talking about intent to injure and KNOWING what someone is thinking your speaking of opinion, not fact. an argument can be made for players from the habs to be just as guilty. I'm glad Max Pac is ok, but to say undeniably that chara intended to injure someone is all accusations.
It may all be accusations, but when you take into account that Chara was chasing after Pacioretty for 2 whole games prior(looking for any opportunity to get back at him) to be hit and that before the game Pacioretty got injured he said "I know I have a target on my back because of the shove"...it gives other reasons to believe that there was some intentionality in his hit. He probably didn't mean to throw him in the stanchion, but it's obvious that he took at opportunity to get back at Pacioretty by giving him a hard hit, unfortunately in was in a bad part of the ice.
I still think that Chara intended to get back at Pacioretty, it was obvious...but I don't think he meant to put him into the divider...like I said, it was a freak accident, but I still think he was trying to get Pacioretty back.
Also, most of the complaints from the habs fans were about the non-suspension more than anything. Chara's hit was interference and it resulted in injury. Almost every suspension is a suspension because an illegal play resulted in an injury, that's why some boardings are suspension worthy and others are not. Moreover, the fact the Rome was suspended for the very same reasons why Habs fans wanted Chara suspended only further solidifies our complaint.
It isn't all accusations when that player clearly had a problem with the player who got injured and he was the one who injured him. Plain and simple. That's like me clearly hating somebody and then "accidentally" hitting them with my car. You think the cops won't look at the fact that I clearly hated the person even if it was 100% an accident? Sorry but wake up this is the real world and frankly regardless of if you say it's opinion intent is something that's looked into in the court of law all the time. They can prove it within a reasonable doubt if you have a history of violence/dislike of that person. Chara clearly did have a problem with Patches and everyone knew it. I don't get how people can lie and deny it not only to other people but themselves.
1) He did target him
2) He knew exactly who he was targeting (it wasn't too fast these guys got to the NHL because they're of the crop that have the hockey sense to play at such a speed)
3) He wanted to hurt him but not to that extent. He didn't necessarily want to hit him directly into the stantion to me that was more wrong place wrong time, but he did intend to give him a big hit even to the point of giving him a minor injury. Equivalent to the Rome hit on Horton in terms of intent. He intended to hurt him but maybe not to such a degree.
Accidents happen in a sport like this, I'm sure Chara's intent wasn't "I want to end the ****ers career". Pretty sure he didn't want to become the next Bert. But he definitely wanted to inflict at minimum a large amount of pain and possibly even maybe a minor injury. I'm sure he didn't want Patch leaving on a stretcher though.
I agree with this, from day one I thought Chara should be suspended, he was obviously frustrated with the game as the Bruins were losing, he obviously doesn't like Paccioretty for the push after he scored in OT (and let's be serious here, who would be ok with that?) and he didn't like Max for going after Kampfer in the 8-6 game.
I think Chara intended to throw a big hit on Max, spark the bruins, make Max look stupid and at worst, put him on the bench dazed and shaken thinking "wtf just happened", but Chara made a stupid and careless decision, he hit him with those intentions not thinking "he could hit the stanchion and get seriously hurt" I think Chara felt terrible about it after (he really is a nice guy on and off the ice, he's no Chris Pronger, and it was evident how he felt in his interviews and on ice play -he just lets his emotions get the better of him a lot, which a lot of hockey players do, Lucic does this too, because he's also a very nice guy off the ice ) but I also think he omitted things so he wouldn't be suspended, and really, what captain would be stupid enough to say "Ya i knew it was Max and my intention was to throw a big hit and take him out of the play"...none of them are going to say anything that will make it worse for their situation. He didnt want to be suspended, he wanted to play hockey and captain his squad. I guarantee you Chara felt awful about it and wanted nothing more but for Max to recover, and the sooner the better.
He should have been suspended, had he been, this thing would have blown over by now, that's on the league (what else is new?)
In the end, Max is ok, he's going to be a hell of a player, and habs bruins rivalry continues.
It may all be accusations, but when you take into account that Chara was chasing after Pacioretty for 2 whole games prior(looking for any opportunity to get back at him) to be hit and that before the game Pacioretty got injured he said "I know I have a target on my back because of the shove"...it gives other reasons to believe that there was some intentionality in his hit. He probably didn't mean to throw him in the stanchion, but it's obvious that he took at opportunity to get back at Pacioretty by giving him a hard hit, unfortunately in was in a bad part of the ice.
I still think that Chara intended to get back at Pacioretty, it was obvious...but I don't think he meant to put him into the divider...like I said, it was a freak accident, but I still think he was trying to get Pacioretty back.
Also, most of the complaints from the habs fans were about the non-suspension more than anything. Chara's hit was interference and it resulted in injury. Almost every suspension is a suspension because an illegal play resulted in an injury, that's why some boardings are suspension worthy and others are not. Moreover, the fact the Rome was suspended for the very same reasons why Habs fans wanted Chara suspended only further solidifies our complaint.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 911 calls pour in prior to the announcement of the non-suspension?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury
It isn't all accusations when that player clearly had a problem with the player who got injured and he was the one who injured him. Plain and simple. That's like me clearly hating somebody and then "accidentally" hitting them with my car. You think the cops won't look at the fact that I clearly hated the person even if it was 100% an accident? Sorry but wake up this is the real world and frankly regardless of if you say it's opinion intent is something that's looked into in the court of law all the time. They can prove it within a reasonable doubt if you have a history of violence/dislike of that person. Chara clearly did have a problem with Patches and everyone knew it. I don't get how people can lie and deny it not only to other people but themselves.
This happens all the time in NHL, payback for actions from a previous game.
Also, most of the complaints from the habs fans were about the non-suspension more than anything.Chara's hit was interference and it resulted in injury. Almost every suspension is a suspension because an illegal play resulted in an injury, that's why some boardings are suspension worthy and others are not. Moreover, the fact the Rome was suspended for the very same reasons why Habs fans wanted Chara suspended only further solidifies our complaint.
This i completely understand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury
It isn't all accusations when that player clearly had a problem with the player who got injured and he was the one who injured him. Plain and simple. That's like me clearly hating somebody and then "accidentally" hitting them with my car. You think the cops won't look at the fact that I clearly hated the person even if it was 100% an accident?
Circumstantial evidence. Because you have a dislike for someone doesn't guarantee that your liable in an accident. You can argue motive, but it has to be proven that the motive at that moment in time was what was on chara's mind. That it was premeditated. And you cant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury
Sorry but wake up this is the real world and frankly regardless of if you say it's opinion intent is something that's looked into in the court of law all the time.
Without a doubt its looked at, but you better have hard evidence in a case before you put all your eggs in the basket of "we think he did it because he didn't like him". Cuz, you'll fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury
They can prove it within a reasonable doubt if you have a history of violence/dislike of that person. Chara clearly did have a problem with Patches and everyone knew it. I don't get how people can lie and deny it not only to other people but themselves.
But you cannot prove without reasonable doubt that chara intended to injure pac. You can prove that chara didn't like him, but that means nothing. You cant connect the two. It would fail miserably.
its all theorizing. Which, believe me, i understand the "fan" aspect of it. You guys know what you say, you have your opinions and i respect that. However, just because you believe it was deliberate doesn't make it so.
I'm curious as to why any Boston fans felt the need to come post in this thread. Especially considering no one was even supporting this investigation before one of them decided to come in here and start ****.
Two sides to every story, and sometimes people should try to open their eyes to the other view.
I won't bother mentioning what I think about the actual topic here though.
So once again. Where do you draw the line? Gomez shoved kelly from behind and chris kelly went head first into the goal post and fractured his face. His injury could have been worse, or been nothing at all as that play happens alot when someone is trying to backcheck an opposing player. The post, just like the stanchion is part of the "ice". Does gomez go on trial now? There was a penalty on the play, the act of gomez "driving" kelly's face first into the post was deemed a penalty there for he was guilty, right?
Or do we go back to Hal Gill running someone into the stanchion in montreal during the 09/10 season in montreal where the fans went crazy after the check... Should someone press charges on attempt to injure?
Or even the vicious boarding on mark eaton by no one other than Pacioretty himself? I mean, You want to talk about intention? You want to talk about KNOWING what your doing when doing it?
Look,
The outcome of the chara hit was unfortunate. But when you start talking about intent to injure and KNOWING what someone is thinking your speaking of opinion, not fact. an argument can be made for players from the habs to be just as guilty. I'm glad Max Pac is ok, but to say undeniably that chara intended to injure someone is all accusations.
The main thing about intentions is that Chara was after Pacioretty for some games now.. Big slashing and crosschecking in front of the net and always going after him during scrums just the game before.. He knew it was him and wanted to hit him. That's it. Was it his intention to break Patches neck? I don't think so, well I hope he didn't..
The main thing about intentions is that Chara was after Pacioretty for some games now.. Big slashing and crosschecking in front of the net and always going after him during scrums just the game before.. He knew it was him and wanted to hit him. That's it. Was it his intention to break Patches neck? I don't think so, well I hope he didn't..
What's wrong with wanting to hit a guy though? If the opportunity's there, and you want to hit him, hit him! Agitators have that target on their backs night in night out.
I don't get this whole "he knew it was him" argument.
The main thing about intentions is that Chara was after Pacioretty for some games now.. Big slashing and crosschecking in front of the net and always going after him during scrums just the game before.. He knew it was him and wanted to hit him. That's it. Was it his intention to break Patches neck? I don't think so, well I hope he didn't..
no its not it. My point is, because someone dislikes someone else doesn't automatically make him guilty of premeditation. Did chara know he was getting beat? yup (because of the angle he took) did he try and hit that person, yup, did he decide to check him into the stanchion because it was max pac? You can't say yes, because well, you don't know.
The main thing about intentions is that Chara was after Pacioretty for some games now.. Big slashing and crosschecking in front of the net and always going after him during scrums just the game before.. He knew it was him and wanted to hit him. That's it. Was it his intention to break Patches neck? I don't think so, well I hope he didn't..
Chara didn't really target Max Pac the way you make it sound. He does that to any player in front of his net, and when the other player battles back in front of the net, Chara gets even more into it.
Chara went after Pacioretty that one scrum in the previous game, because: Pacioretty went after Kampfer, a total non fighter, a smaller guy, who was also wearing a full cage due to an earlier injury. Anyone that went after Kampfer in that situation was going to deal with Chara. That's what Chara does; he jumps in to defend smaller guys (Kessel --> Valabik, Krejci --> Komisarek, Kampfer --> Pacioretty, and many more). Just to clarify.
And I personally don't think Chara, or any adult, would let something as minor as a shove after a goal result in wanting to intentionally hurt for revenge. You gotta have more faith in humanity than that. Chara is no criminal in a gang or something. It was a big hit gone wrong, end, period.
Don't see the point in having this debate for the zillionth time, especially with other fanbases dropping in to add their 2 cents. Topic has served its purpose, thanks for coming out everybody.
