Jennifer Botterill has faced heavy backlash for her comments regarding violence in hockey, and one NHL analyst is standing up for her during this tough time.

Sportsnet has been under intense scrutiny for several years, both for their on-air product and their staffing decisions, and once again, one of their analysts finds themselves in the middle of controversy. This time around, it’s Jennifer Botterill. A Canadian former Olympic gold medalist who works as an NHL commentator who dove into the middle of controversy after she disagreed with fellow analyat Kevin Bieksa on a heated moment between NHL players Juraj Slafkovsky, Arber Xhekaj, and Noel Acciari. Botterill reopens questions about the changed face of hockey and how the sport’s historic features come to express themselves.

It happened during the recent game between the Canadiens and Penguins, where the Penguins’ Noel Acciari gave a high hit to young forward Juraj Slafkovsky. It became an instant reaction from Arber Xhekaj, who looked for retribution on behalf of his teammate from that nasty hit and tried some knee-on-knee contact afterward.

The physical type throughout his NHL career, Bieksa wholly agreed, saying things such as this do need to be done in order to keep the respect and keep guys safe on the ice. He was all for the “eye-for-an-eye” approach typical of the traditional view still maintained by many around hockey circles:

“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. That for me is the right time to go at a guy. It’s an eye for an eye. 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.”

Jennifer Botterill disagreed though, saying that the game has to move away from physical retribution and put player safety above some type of aggressive response. Her perspective runs in complete contrast to the old-school point of view that has long glorified hockey’s tougher side, where players must make things right on the ice rather than leave incidents to league officials.

Botterill, representative of a growing call for less violent play, and more disciplined, has received heavy criticism:

“Then you get players with potential suspensions or fines and you guys are just fine. Guess what the game is changing and there is other solutions. Maybe it’s changing, maybe it can change. It has changed, it doesn’t always have to be an eye for an eye.”

However, there was one critic who disagreed with the vitriol Botterill has gotten. The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell came to the defense of the Olympian, who stated the panel is meant for discussion, not aggression:

“But the keyboard warriors who got all triggered were in full force. And it was pathetic. It’s a panel, which is a free-flowing exchange of ideas and opinions. Be better, people.”

The difference in opinion begins to widen as larger questions about the future of hockey seem to balance out tradition with changing player standards. Yet many fans love the intensity and roughness attributed to hockey’s physical side, and see players like Arber Xhekaj as enforcers who stand up for teammates and uphold the sport’s unwritten code.

Comments like Jennifer Botterill’s strike a chord for those who believe hockey is at a crossroads and moving away from a violently inclined game that focuses on skill over fighting. She has certainly been criticized in this debate, with some voices classifying her argument as taking hockey a step too far from its roots. However, the root of hockey also had goalies without masks and who knows where the game would be nowadays without moving away from tradition.

The discussion over Jennifer Botterill’s comments and even Bieksa’s contrary opinion is part of the bigger discussion within hockey regarding the nature of hockey. The only truth is that decisions will be made to temper hockey’s physical tradition with the obligation to create a safer playing environment, one that will please very few.

This figures from both sides of the debate such as Botterill and Bieksa’s, which can show that this is only beginning, to shape hockey’s future as it tries to balance these competing values to both make the game equal parts exciting and safe for everyone involved.