Fans lash out at Hockey Night in Canada panelist Jennifer Botterill after a heated exchange on Saturday night.
A heated debate on Hockey Night in Canada (HNIC) Saturday night has led to a great deal of criticism from outraged fans on social media with much of the criticism seemingly directed at one panelist in particular, 3 time Olympic gold medalist Jennifer Botterill.
A controversial incident during Saturday night’s clash between the Montreal Canadiens and Pittsburgh Penguins, a hit from Penguins forward Noel Acciari on Canadiens forward Juraj Slafkovsky, led to a conversation from the HNIC panel that saw tempers flare following the conclusion of that game.
The Canadiens would retaliate following the hit on Slafkovsky when Canadiens enforcer Arber Xhekaj would deliver a knee on knee hit to Acciari as time expired, a move that both the former National Hockey League players on the panel agreed with. Both former NHLer Kevin Bieksa and Luke Gazdic appeared to see things the same way, feeling the Canadiens were put in a position where they needed to stick up for their young first overall pick in Slafkovsky.
Bieksa made it clear that he felt the Canadiens’ response from Xhekaj was justified given the context of the hit on Slafkovsky.
“Good team reaction from Montreal to come together as a team,” said Bieksa on Saturday night. “That’s why you want Xhekaj on the team and that’s why you want him in the lineup for that stuff.”
“The game is over… I think right there is the right time for Xhekaj to go at a guy who took out your star player earlier in the game,” added Bieksa. “That for me is the right time to go at a guy.”
When pressed by Botterill on the issue Bieksa would double down on his comments, indicating that Acciari had made himself a target by going after Slafkovsky with what he described earlier in the evening as a “dirty hit.”
“It’s an eye for an eye,” said Bieksa. “I don’t think he’s too apologetic about that, I wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t care if it’s clean or not, you get my guy I’m getting you back at some point.”
Gazdic would share a similar sentiment, indicating that those outside the game often forget how emotional a situation like the one that unfolded on Saturday night can be for the players on a particular team.
“I just think people sometimes take the emotion out of it and they forget how much adrenaline and emotion is in the players at that time in a game,” said Gazdic. “You see your first overall pick, your little brother, your kid that you love on the hockey team… you see an older player on the other team extend his elbow to his jaw and he goes off and he’s now in concussion protocol… that pisses me off.”
Gazdic expressed his dismay at the knee on knee hit, but added that he understood why Xhekaj had crossed that line given the context.
“I want to take action from there and maybe it shouldn’t be a knee but I understand the frustration there,” said Gazdic.
Bieksa would jump in at this point and suggest that there would have been an uproar in the city of Montreal had no one from the Canadiens responded to the hit on Slafkovsky.
“If there was no action taken there, there would be a bigger conversation in Montreal like ‘This team is not tight they don’t take care of each other’” said Bieksa.
Botterill however would balk at the comments from her colleagues, even appearing to get emotional during the conversation, suggesting that their view of the situation was dated.
“Then you get players with potential suspensions or fines and you guys are just fine,” said a visibly emotional Botterill. “Guess what the game is changing and there is other solutions.”
Bieksa’s response was short and to the point.
“That’s the NHL,” said the former NHL defenseman.
Botterill would double down on her own comments, refusing to back down.
“Maybe it’s changing, maybe it can change,” said Botterill. “It has changed, it doesn’t always have to be an eye for an eye.”
Bieksa also refused to back down on his stance.
“No it doesn’t have to but it is at times,” said Bieksa. “For me I think that was handled the right way.”
Botterill once again disagreed with her co-panelist.
“I don’t,” said Botterill. “I don’t think it was necessary.”
Bieksa’s response was again short and to the point.
“Well agree to disagree,” said Bieksa.
Gazdic and Bieksa would both reiterate that they felt things would have been much worse had the Canadiens failed to respond to the hit on Slafkovsky.
“I would have more of a problem with the Habs if nothing happened at the end” said Gazdic. “I don’t want him taking the ankle or taking the knee… that’s a message, that tells other teams around the league that Slafkovsky is off limits. There are certain players on your team that you can’t allow things like that to happen to. there has to be some sort of response.”
The heated exchange between the 3 panelists would lead to considerable backlash on social media, all of which seemed to be directed against Botterill and the position she took during the argument. Several posts critical of Botterill on social media platform X would receive hundreds of ‘likes’ following the debate. Here are just a few examples:
Now to be fair not all of the comments were negative and some did appear to take Botterill’s side on the issue, but they appeared to be the minority by a wide margin and also appeared to receive less support on the platform.
I would love to hear how our readers felt about last night’s exchange on HNIC, please leave me your feedback on this topic in the comments.
