VAR is supposed to check any clear and obvious errors. The on-field decision was offside, so presumably VAR checked if there was an obvious error. Whether the decision was right or not, it was a subjective call and VAR didn't think there was any clear reason to decide it was an error. End of story.
As you say, had it been given, it would probably have stood for exactly the same reason.
The problem with that argument is that there have been plenty of decisions that went to VAR that were subjective decisions which were reversed in which it
wasn't established that a clear or obvious error was made. Anotherwords, they're applying this concept in this situation but they don't apply it in others. And worse, in this situation they've made it seem like VAR wouldn't even be allowed to intervene depending on the lino's decision.
Yet we keep hearing claims to the contrary, how VAR did look it at and "confirmed" it. How could they look at it and confirm it if they aren't allowed to? It has been alleged that Michael Oliver is the one who confirmed it himself which gives the impression that he merely signed off on what the assistant said without giving it the kind of scrutiny we have come to expect from VAR.
It is unacceptable to have different standards applied to different situations and I'm sorry but it is scandalous for the assistant to make such a decision if in fact that decision would have prevented the possibility of a full review which would be needed to study the incident and actually confirm whether or not he interfered.
If they are scared of making subjective offsides interference decisions through VAR then just admit it instead of creating this sham of going out of their way to hide behind on field decisions in these cases. The whole point of VAR is to correct incorrect onfield decisions but here they didn't. And the official conclusion, whether we like it or not, is that the wrong decision was made.
Putting that aside, they've attempted to justify that wrong decision being made by arguing VAR couldn't have gotten involved, or that even if they did, that they wouldn't have enough clear evidence to overturn the on field decision, which is quite the conundrum. These are obstacles to being allowed to make the correct decision. It is counter productive to accept that depending on what the lino rules on the pitch, or through a prolonged discussion with the referee, that he could prevent the possibility of a review that would be needed to determine interference, subjective as it may be. The guidelines in the LOTG are pretty clear on what constitutes interference in the VAR era. They changed the laws and made them the way they are so VAR can work and adjudicate these kind of situations. Only they can't get out of their own way in preventing the system they designed from being used property.