http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=374016

leave it alone. we dont need a plastic strip at the top.

_________________

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.

This is normally where I'd insert my spiel about how they should just put RFID tags in the pucks but I read in a R&D camp related article that the league has actually already tried that several times and couldn't make it work :/

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

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.

I like the clear bits to help calls and the stream lined shape...diggin it

_________________

Of course it would only be there to augment what we already have.
If by all other means the call was inconclusive, use it. Those things don't go off by accident and it would have to be placed far enough back in the net to make it a sure thing (like under the verification line).

but like I said, it's apparently a moot point...you'd think if they can collect a toll from a car moving 60Mph they could sense a puck dribbling over the line.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

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?

_________________
"Call a cop he robbed Delmore blind!!!"
Rick Jeanerette after Marty Biron's diving save back in 2000.

"I'm going to go to the spa and have a hot tub and massage and relax," Miller said. "That's it, and it's back to work tomorrow." Ryan Miller after clinching the North East division.

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.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

same thing.

_________________

close, just a generation and a war apart.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

see? looks the same

_________________

The clear plastic strip and thinner netting are for the express purpose of making it easier to see on video replay.

Spoken like someone who has never worn polyester

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

oh, no! i used to wear button up polyester shirts as a freshman in highschool. they were super bright and reflective. terrible style, but me and a few friends rocked it.

_________________

So the clear plastic strip would replace the netting on the top of the net? I never thought the netting blocked the view as much as the crossbar does. Another reason why I'd put cameras under the ice below the net area.

I'm sure there's a good reason why it won't be done. I know from prior research that the way the ice is layered would not pose an install problem, but maybe heat from the camera would be too much, and would melt the upper layer without cost prohibitive cooling systems.

A better option could be having cameras installed inside both pipes near the bottom and inside the crossbar near both sides, as well as the usual back pipe. The battery packs could also fit inside the pipes and little plexi glass eyeholes would provide the view without compromising the strength of the net. That would be five cameras per goal (or maybe just three) and I'm sure somebody in the league office thinks that's too much money to spend.

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

_________________

I like the idea of the net enhancements. Hopefully their tests show an improvement in determining if a puck crossed the plane.

_________________

A bingo.

Goalie places trapper over top of puck as it is on or just barely crossing the line, cameras everywhere will not be able to tell if the puck did cross. I'm sure there will be instances where if the puck is dribbling across the line where this may help if it is in plain sight, but with a glove, leg or head covering it, you can have all the cameras in the world and it won't mean squat.

_________________
If it's a tight squeeze, spit on it! - NyI

He's a middling AHL player who had the good fortune of a drunk arbitrator. - The Squanto re: Tim Kennedy

That's why an under the surface camera would be ideal, I just don't know if it's practical and cost effective.