It's a very interesting discussion, and leads to a broader one, about the meaning of stabilised approaches.
Wingswinger, above, mentions de-stabilising the approach by chasing the lights or the v/s in the late stage. Newer pilots will probably only know about "stabilisation criteria" being a set of numbers and conditions which are to be met, and maintained.
20 years ago an approach which was steadily and consistently 30 feet low, would not have been seen as unstable (although during base training on the 732, I was criticised for allowing 3 reds at <200 to become 4 reds at<100. Well if you maintain the correct approach angle that is what will happen. I didn't argue).
From 300 feet, even with 3 reds, you are going to hit the tarmac. 30 feet vertical error is about 700 feet of runway.
From the trainer's perspective, or even the normal line captain who has to sign in what's left of the aircraft, I'd much rather see no correction to a slightly low late final than yank-and-float. 4 whites might be a different matter, but it's too late to save it with a stuka dive by then.
Local effects also come into play, eg at Corfu, where a 3.5 slope on the NPA meets 3.1 PAPI. And less objectively at a runway where you "know" that the house thermal over the car park will punt you 50 feet up.
That, I suppose, is when you have to do some of that old fashioned "pilot s**t".