I will look closer at the arguments tomorrow. I can sort of already imagine some of them. There is a reason they are called "considerations". It is because they are not authoritative or conclusive, they are just posed questions to think about in the few milliseconds most referees have to make their decisions.
In practice, out on the field without VAR, most referee will err on the side of making a no call. We are instructed as referees to only make calls that we are sure about (over 95% sure). You will rarely see this handball called on any pitch that doesn't require an admission fee. The problem I see on a lot of referee forums is that there is a lot of "this is what I would call in my game". This lends an interesting dichotomy where both the professional referees and the keyboard warriors are correct. Both games are different enough that the correct decision is the opposite depending on the league. If I called fouls like they do in the World Cup at my next Adult Men's game, I would be chased off the pitch.
Professional referees have to deal with high definition, slow-motion, multiple camera angles that dissect every little detail of the game, so naturally they have to call it differently and closer to the letter of the law in order for them to defend themselves. They are also required to be, for the most part, in sync with their peers. In amateur soccer, the referee is entitled to reffing the game "his way". Does he call a tight Napoleonic game or does he "let them play"? But PRO refs need to be consistent not only within the game, but with each other. It is easier to set clear definable boundaries and stick to them than tell them they should all "let them play" and then expect that all the games will be called similarly.
