Your initial reply added 15 minutes to a 2:25 hockey match for reviewing "every penalty"...then it somehow stretched to three hours. Two minutes for delay of game!
Anyway, the suggested comparative sports examples don't work well IMO. People generally DO sit at a baseball game for three hours or more, depending on the number of extra innings...then, how about a few more
hours, for a doubleheader?
And football is even more popular, yet every game is at least three hours, plus more if there's OT or lots of reviews--and the NFL is consistently held up as an example of at least TRYING to use technology to get the most calls right they can. That's despite having a referee, linesmen, umpires, back judge, field judges, line judges...enough eyeballs to make a scallop jealous.
Anyone believing hockey fans dislike watching longer hockey games should check out the postseason. Come playoff time, games can go into OT, 2OT, 3OT...with a butt in every seat, right up to the final buzzer. (Another excellent argument for trashing the stupid shootout--during OT there's no streaming for the exits to "beat traffic".)
Bottom line, you can train refs for 10 years and pay them $10 million, and it will still be physically impossible to see and judge everything happening at NHL speeds. Saying they should use video for majors only is essentially equivalent to saying use video never, with major penalties (aside from fighting) being rare as frog's teeth. Somewhere between "every penalty" and "virtually never" lies the happy medium that would vastly improve the sport IMO
Edit to add: Who are these "8 sets of eyes"? Are we doubling the officiating crew, are tarantulas wearing the stripes now, or what?