The problem with the parallax effect is that it requires the puck to have height in order for it to affect any sort of perception.
For the Sam Bennett example, we can deduce that the puck may have been an inch or so off the ground, so the parallax effect could allow us to believe that part of the puck was not across the line. At least not conclusively.
But for the Gelinas example, the puck went off a skate and was almost definitely still touching the ground. Pucks coming off of skates are rarely airborne. Here, the puck was partially sideways - this shows that while the puck may had some upwards momentum, it was not enough for it to leave the ground.
Therefore, the parallax effect had no impact on the Gelinas goal, and the puck was in beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore conclusive and the Flames were robbed a cup.
|