<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The problem with your theory <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Skyweasel,
Not a theory really, but an explanation from someone who is objectively looking at the situation to those who are either too emotional vested or inexperienced to understand camera angles depth of field, focal length, etc. I work in video production and started my career in sports TV as a cameraman for such events. I can't tell you how many times things like this came up. It takes a further understanding from the simple "I know what I see with my own two eyes" approach. Again, you are attempting to use a two dimensional picture to prove a three dimensional point. The angle of the shot means EVERY thing in determining the relationship of the items to each other. Just because items "clearly" touch in a picture doesn't mean they were actually touching at the time. I can show you a picture of a friend who appears to be leaning against a miniature of the Washington monument. Only it's the real monument that's a quarter mile away but we lined the angle up to make it appear they're touching (an extreme example but the same principle). Another example are action film directors who count on deceptive angles in fight sequences in order to make phantom punch after phantom punch appear to "clearly" connect.
Knowing the (true) facts, there is very little that's clear in the shot you provide or the one that starts the thread (they're different). Although I agree his leg appears to be flush with the ice it's not clear where the puck is from THAT angle.
Again this is not a "goal, no goal" debate, not for me anyway. It's a "goal, inconclusive" debate. It may have been a goal, in which case it's a terrible sports injustice that Calgary doesn't have the Cup and it would have been great to have a angle to prove it - because this one doesn't.
I like your ergo train of thought, reminds me of the old joke:
God is love,
Love is blind,
Ray Charles is blind,
ergo...