Jeff:

I remembered from your previous piece about softball that you feel the softball rule book is the worst written book in the history of sports. I can't agree more. However, the good people at the American Softball Association are not the only ones writing strange rules.

The first of these is from my primary sport, hockey. New this year is a rule about goaltenders smothering the puck in their own end. Prior to this season, goaltenders could smother the puck in their own end but not behind the goal line. That rule was ripe for abuse as goaltenders could smother the puck just about anywhere.

To solve that problem, Hockey Canada created a new rule that made it a delay of game penalty for a goaltender to cover the puck while outside the crease if that action delays the game "unnecessarily." Unnecessarily?

What is the measure of necessary. Must the goaltender feel that a scoring chance is being averted, or that their very life is in danger? Frankly, if a goaltender can save his life, or the life of any other person, by smothering the puck, I would not penalize him — ever.

However, preventing a goal scoring chance cannot possibly meet the threshold of "necessary." That opens the argument that anyone who holds a player on a scoring chance is off the hook because it is necessary to negate the goal.

In short, this rule is disastrous. The language is more plain than most, but it simply does not make any sense.

A good rule will tell us what we need to do in a clear, plain way. It will acknowledge the obvious situations that could come up and tell us what to do with them. This rule does none of the above.

You do a lot of sports. And you often deal with the NFHS rule books (well-known for getting to the point very slowly). Can you top it?

dave

__________________________________