Firstly, this was objectively the wrong call. At least with throw-ins or goal-kicks/corners, there can be a degree of uncertainty in real time over who the ball touched last. This was just wrong.
Secondly, this is sort of the point I'm making. Bad decisions affect games whenever they are made, and to varying degrees, but you can't dismiss the obvious affects of Liverpool (incorrectly) being handed possession of the ball by going "should have defended better then" because that logic could extends to basically every bad decision that has ever and will ever be made, and you may as well just not bother discussing any aspect of officiating, or even do away with the officials altogether.
As for the insistence that you and
@RobinLFC have of it only delaying Liverpool winning the ball back; you can't possibly know that. Diaz's goal being allowed to stand against Spurs could have ignited a fire under them and saw them run out 5-1 winners against Liverpool's 10 men. It could have been the start of an unlikely 4-0 routing in Liverpool's favour. Likewise, had play continued, Hudson-Odoi could have curled one into the top corner, dribbled into the box and won a penalty, or perhaps slipped on his arse and had his team caught out on the counter.
You've got a point with "how far do you extend it", but it's quite obvious that a team unjustly being given an opportunity to put their opponents under a period of sustained pressure, instead of defending their own box, and that same period of sustained pressure resulting in a goal, had a massive impact on the game. You can't just go "well, Liverpool probably would have won the ball back anyway."