Even if they used a successful chip, some people would still say (and it may actually happen anyway) that the puck wasn't visibly over and looked like the chip sounded off incorrectly. People (fans, officials, players) would always want the reassurance of visual proof.

What's the clear plastic strip supposed to accomplish? The article doesn't say. I like the verification line in the case (too often) that the goal line isn't completely visible on review. The built in camera is a no brainer, although I'd prefer an under-ice level camera that could never have it's view blocked. The shallow net sounds ok at first, but wrap-around goals could be on the increase and possibly not very fair for goalies. Vanek might exploit that situation though for our benefit.

The other rule changes being considered that I like are...

No-touch icing
No icing while on PK (which lessens the ill effect of taking a penalty, so what's the point?)
And even having to serve a full penalty no matter how many times the other teams scores on their PP.

The risk of those last two changes would be moving towards pinball hockey, but the league has struggled to increase scoring in a legit way and to reduce the clutch and grab to make the game more free flowing. If taking a penalty really, truly poses a game losing risk, players would take the responsibility on their own to play a cleaner game and simultaneously take the pressure off the inconsistent officiating that drives fans crazy. FWIW, in case serving a full penalty sounds crazy, that's actually how the game originated and was played until the '40s or '50s when the NHL changed the rules due to Montreal's total dominance on the PP. With today's level of salary cap driven parity we shouldn't have to worry about that scenario.

I like the no-touch icing and serving the full penalty, they already do that for 5 minute majors or something don't they? Why should it be different for 2 and 4 minute penalties?

it used to be that way till the 70s, when the canadiens would score 3 times on one powerplay.

Yeah, the rule is informally named after them....and it was 1956-57...not the 70's.

same thing.

What's the clear plastic strip supposed to accomplish? The article doesn't say. I like the verification line in the case (too often) that the goal line isn't completely visible on review. The built in camera is a no brainer, although I'd prefer an under-ice level camera that could never have it's view blocked. The shallow net sounds ok at first, but wrap-around goals could be on the increase and possibly not very fair for goalies. Vanek might exploit that situation though for our benefit.

see? looks the same

Spoken like someone who has never worn polyester

the issue is obscured pucks. cameras in a post wont matter if the puck is covered by a human being.