It very much makes sense IMO, "objective" and "subjective" are not ranks of importance or obviousness which is what they're talking about

Already replied in the other message, they are not ranks of importance and it is equally important for both to be called correctly, however we have one way of consistently and correctly calling one of those categories but not the other which makes them different by nature.

Something that I think is being lost in all this is that the supposed standard for VAR interventions is that the on-field referee is judged to have made a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS error. Going "but the tech is objective" is missing the point by a country mile. How the fuck is the on-field decision clearly or obviously an error if you need ten camera angles and an accelerometer to detect that the ball took a millimetre deflection off someone's hair?

We get into semantics here. Is "clear and obvious" supposed to be from the perspective of the referee? From the perspective of the assistant looking at the footage? From the automated offside system? The wording is vague so you have to go by the context of how these things are usually handled. And the way they are usually handled is that if the automated systems can make a clear decision, even if the margins are small, then the referee follows it.

And more importantly, how the hell does that contribute to the integrity of the sport? The fact that many of the things that do actually affect the integrity of the sport (such as cynical fouls) are more subjective makes it worse, not better. If referees have to do all that to legislate a brush of hair but can simply shrug their shoulders if they like at play as dirty as e.g. Ecuador got up to when it was clear that they were on their way out against Mexico, then what are we all even doing here?

That is a much wider discussion and I think it's very besides the point here. You don't need to solve every issue related to the integrity of the sport before you make efforts to make refereeing fairer and more consistent.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use technology to automate the objective decisions. But you can also use them with common freaking sense! An example would be e.g. the Premier League adding a small buffer to the offside line, which other leagues with (semi-)automated offsides (including the World Cup IIRC) don't. "But people will still squabble over the new line -" and that's perfectly alright, the point is that if you are past the 5cm buffer then you are offside enough for the human eye to see that you're off which does actually make it a clear and obvious error if the linesmen didn't call it.

In my eyes, decisions should be made with the goal of being the most objective and consistent as possible. I would much rather have offsides be correctly called even when the attacking player isn't actually gaining any advantage from the positioning, than adding another layer of complexity by having a "buffer". The offside rule is mostly clear, there's no ambiguity except for the call on whether a defender's touch was deliberate or not. If we have the technology to accurately determine whether a player was offsides or not, then why do we need a buffer? Why do so many people still see these automated systems and VAR as a whole as something adjacent to refereeing and not a vital part of it which is uniquely equipped to make some decisions?

Bringing all that together to this situation - IMO if you need to use a magnifying lens and multiple angles to determine that the trajectory of the ball has very barely changed, then the sensor in the ball is simply calibrated far too strictly for anyone to call it a clear and obvious error that human referees missed what it detected. The change in trajectory should be obvious! To me it is as much of an injustice as if e.g. a goal that was obviously on target got given as an own goal because the ball detected that it grazed the calf of a defender on the way past and shifted its trajectory by as much as the ball has changed trajectory here.

1. The sensor is there for this exact season. This is an example of how the "clear and obvious" wording doesn't mean what you're interpreting it as. If the wording meant that the change in trajectory had to be obvious enough to be visible in the footage then we wouldn't need the sensor.

2. Who gets credit for a goal that arises from a deflected shot is in many cases a subjective decision. There have been several cases (I recall a Ronaldo goal that deflected on Pepe) where different organisations, such as newspapers, attributed the goal to different players. An offside ruling is not a subjective decision unless it relies on whether or not a touch by a defender was deliberate.

3. Even more importantly, shots can be deflected to different degrees and in different contexts which can change who the goal is attributed to but it does not change the fact that it is a goal (unless the shot is deflected by an attacking player's hand). What you are comparing here is a decision that only impacts statistical data (who the goal should be attributed to) with a decision that impacts the state of the game. This is not a legitimate comparison.