Maybe someone mentioned this already, but on Norwegian TV they did something they apparently can do, and contacted VAR for an explanation. What they got back was that the shot was deemed to be from too close a distance to warrant a call.
Which I don't think makes any sense, given that Romero had his arm sticking straight out, directly in the area any shot would need to pass through in order to hit goal.
It's bullshit at worst, overthinking it at best.
Back in the old days, in my country, they were doing entry-level seminars for aspiring refs who had just read the rulebook. On of the most frequent questions was whether the severity of the penalty as punishment should offer room for leniency on certain occasions or not. Case in point, a handball when it seems that the ball is probably going out or will be saved by the keeper.
You may find it childish, but this is exactly what a lot of professional refs still do. It's also the angle a lot of pundits base their narrative on. It wouldn't have gone in, so try to find a window in the rule book to say it was not a penalty.
Anyhow, the teachers in these seminars always gave the same answer:"If it's a pen, according to the rules, on the simplest of occasions you can think, it's a penalty in any given time".
With that in mind, picture this. Romero's handball occurs right on the goal line. Out of a 100 refs would there be a single one who would not blow his whistle?