No. You clearly don't. Otherwise you wouldn't still be arguing the point and attempting to deflect by going off on a sideways tangent to what you said.
VAR is perfectly defensible on that call because VAR acted exactly the way it should. It alerted the referee to a handball that directly led to a goal that
as per the rules deemed the goal to be disallowed.
As per the rules that is "seriously a handball". Whether or not it is accidental is irrelevant to the discussion. That you think it's not clearly demonstrates you don't.
"It is an offence if a player: after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm,
even if accidental, immediately:
creates a goal-scoring opportunity"
So yes, VAR was perfectly defensible there and got the call perfectly right on what was "seriously a handball" as per the rules. I don't think anyone is in disagreement here that it is the rule that is the issue. But you seemed to take issue with your lack of understanding of it being pointed out.
This was a perfect example of VAR alerting the ref to an offence he had missed allowing him to reverse a goal to the correct call ....
as per the rules of the game.
Slava: VAR is crap. That goal should never have been disallowed. It was never handball
Bagor: Umm, it was the correct call. VAR got it perfectly right.
Slava:
Well no surprise there considering there is a conspiracy theory that I subscribe to that clearly shows that United would be relegated and Spurs champions if VAR wasn't do biased..........
I'm done trying to explain this.