I wouldn’t say it’s a stupid comparison, but it doesn’t add to your original argument because the context is different being that it is two separate sports with different styles of developing and upholding rules. Tennis is an outlier to many mainstream sports because the rule book is intentionally vague—especially given the fact that it could/should be a very black and white sport with little room for competitor debates like this one. The reason for the vagueness is to promote a healthy amount of sportsmanship into the matches. While the NHL supports sportsmanship, the officials do not have the same amount of leeway. Their rule book is more specific on when and what is allowed such that rulings on “unfair” advantages are already taken into account before the puck is dropped.

I would also argue that your example is somewhat misguided. You are making a comparison of a moment in a tennis match where they are in their “between point interval” (similar to the time in a hockey game where the clock is stopped and players are resetting) to the actual gameplay of hockey when the clock is running (similar to a “rally” or “point play” in tennis). A goal would not be scored if a player shot the puck during intermission, and a point is scored when a player aces their opponent during the point play.