This will be the last I respond because there's no clearer way to put this.
The rule states there must be visual evidence of a 100% unobstructed puck over the goal line. If it's in a glove, if it's behind a post, if it's under the goalie's fat ass, as long as there's no shot where there's white space between the puck and the red line, it's not a goal.
You should know this since a pitt staff member of their video production crew was fired for apparently withholding an angle during a video replay against phi years ago that showed the goalie pull the puck out behind the post which logically would've meant it was a goal, the call was no goal.
Huh? Your last point has zero relavance. But please, go find me the actual wording of the video review rule with respect to goals across line. I'm currently looking at the NHL rulebook and see nothing saying as you say.
There's currently the conclusive standard. And while I'm well aware how stupid of a standard they've held that to before, again, say it with me again, that doesn't make it right.
Lets say I'm watching uninterrupted satellite images that show you get into a car (no sun roof), then sees that car, non-stop drive from point A to point B and you get out of the car from at point B. I can conclusively say, you were inside the car in-between point A and point B even though the Car's roof may have stopped me from actually seeing you inside the car at that time..
And they have in fact called good goals when they have seen the puck go in a glove, and the glove clearly crosses the line (and I've seen that same call go the other way). Again, the NHL needs to take another look on what it considers conclusive.