both

I don't want to say "I told you so," especially because anyone with both common sense and hockey sense could have seen this coming, but the first few games of the Stanley Cup playoffs have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt something that I blogged about as soon the NHL announced its coach's challenge system: There were a lot of potential negative consequences that needed to be considered but were not.The process was ill-considered, the technology was inadequate for what was needed, failed to address root-cause issues (and instead highlighted them) and the outcome has been to create more confusion, more delays and greater inconsistency.I guess that one positive, if people have been paying attention, is that shows just how difficult the job of the linesmen really can be on offside/onside plays. First of all, since the blueline unlike the goal line does not "extend up" (i.e., a back skate that comes off the ice but is hovering over the blue paint is an offside depending on other circumstances), we're now having fraction of a second offside plays cause otherwise perfectly good goals to be overturned.Don't blame the on-ice officials for the St. Louis and Pittsburgh controversies, folks, and stop it with the crybaby conspiracy theories when you learn that the Rule Book exists for 30 teams, not 29.The coach's challenge means that the strictest possible interpretation of an offside -- not the "spirit of the rule" or the human eye at game speed -- becomes the standard. But only if a goal happens to be scored. Oh, and only if there happens to a freeze-frame at just the right angle viewable on the iPad-like monitor by which the linesman can definitively say the play was offside.There's another problem here, too: the careless wording and occasional self-contradiction of the nuances of the NHL Rule Book, which I've discussed in dozens of blogs over the last few years. Interpretations vary widely on crucial terminology.The Derek Brassard goal in Game 2 of the Rangers-Penguins series was the ultimate case in point. It wasn't just fans having heated debates on the play, so were veteran hockey people with years of experience on every side of the game -- including the officiating side -- and no horse in the race as to which team won the game.Under the Rule Book, a play is not offside if the puck carrier himself brings the puck into the offensive zone in an otherwise offside fashionhe hasindisputable possession AND control of the puck. There was no dispute over puck possession on the play but there was (and still is) vehement debate over puck control as the puck crossed the blue line. He was in the process of gaining full control, but at what point did that happen? If there was NOT control, then the whole skate/blue line contact debate that caused the overturned Tarasenko goal in the St. Louis game becomes the issue.All of this, mind you, is based on interpretive judgment and subjectivity, because terms like puck possession and control are obviously related but also nuanced in their own right. As the situations unfolded and debates raged on both the plays in St. Louis and Pittsburgh, what really stood out to me is that the NHL's attempt to take more and more judgment out of human eyes and minds failed miserably because both plays ultimately came down to those very things, both in real time and upon review.As for goaltender interference reviews, I've said many times that Rule 69 is the messiest one in the entire Rule Book, with so many possible permutations and convoluted terminology -- as well as contradictions with other rules in the book - that what really ought to be done is to rewrite the whole damn thing in a simpler, clearer way.My view of hockey is this: It's hard enough to score goals as it is, especially nowadays. Why should we be disallowing perfectly good goals because we've taken away the spirit of the Rule Book by over-legislating and muddying it? Those incidental contact plays around the net cause trouble time and time again. It's a huge issue every year in the playoffs. The root cause is the muddiness of the Rule Book and review procedures.The NHL's response is inevitably to muddy things further. It sets itself, and its officials, up for failure time and time again, but never learns its lesson. The coach's challenge, from day one, had no chance to do anything but create more inconsistency.Look, that's not to say the officials on the ice are blameless. Their coaches certainly aren't either. They need to get a higher percentage of these calls correct in the first place because we as a sport are way below what I'd consider acceptable benchmarks. We're all in this together.However, I really think that the effort to take more and more judgment out of the game on the ice leads to more incorrect calls and a growing attitude of "we'll get it right in replay if we're wrong" along with poor positioning when making initial calls. Given the dwindling recruitment numbers and the increasing age of the officials above the median -- it's no joke, and the shortages are getting worse and worse -- we should all be very worried about the future.As for the spirit of the game, I believe hockey at its root was not meant to be over-complicated. The rules are meant for safety and fairness for both teams. If something compromises safety or creates an unfair advantage, it's a penalty or no goal. Otherwise, play on.If there is blatant interference, of course there should be no goal. But when we are dallying endlessly into different categories of incidental contact such as barely within the crease boundaries or a shade outside it -- and meanwhile, unable to agree on what is and isn't incidental contact or whether the attacker had opportunity to avoid or reduce such -- I think it is massively unfair that the on-ice officials are inevitably the ones who take all the blame for the fact that 50 percent of those watching will vehemently disagree with whether the initial on-ice call is upheld or overturned on these incidental plays.Final point: Was there a bigger unfunny joke out there than the SECOND replay delay on the goaltender interference dispute in the Chicago-St. Louis game? After an on-ice good goal call, which I felt all along was the correct call, and then a review in Toronto that correctly upheld the correct call, we had to endure even further delay on a St. Louis coach's challenge for the on-ice officials to reconfirm the confirmation they'd just gotten in Toronto.All the while, the game is delayed. The players are standing around. The electricity goes out of the crowd. The TV viewers at home take bathroom breaks or decide that maybe they should go watch water boil in the kitchen to liven things up for the next few minutes. Maybe the sports bars owners like it. They can sell an extra beer or plate of Buffalo wings.Do we need the correct call made three separate times? Do we need good hockey goals called back over minuscule Rule Book matters? For greater consistency, should we start having every offside reviewed, so that perhaps a subsequent delayed penalty can be canceled out?I'm not wise enough to say.*********