Outfield players don't dive for the ball or jump and catch it, either. You can't apply goalkeeping practices to outfield practices; it's apples and oranges.
In any case, Pickford isn't slide tackling here. He's attempting to spread himself and block, as you see goalkeepers do every week (again, something else outfield players can't do). He's rash in the way he does it and his follow through clearly connects with VVD rather than the ball - and that's why I'd have had no problem with a penalty/card if VVD wasn't offside - but it's not intentionally setting out to injure the opponent (i.e. violent conduct). The colour of card is subjective based on the ref's interpretation; if there was no offside I think it's probably a yellow but, yes, it could also have been a red.
That being the case tho, they made the right decision in the context of the chronology of the offences. Offside negates the penalty. It's a legitimate (but poorly executed) attempt to block the ball and, if you're not giving a red card for it, you can't give a yellow on a VAR call so it's simply a case of play on.
that serious foul play also falls into the bucket of things that can be awarded notwithstanding the offside flag.
Also, am getting annoyed by this "if it happened anywhere else on the pitch" argument.
i) people are comparing it with incidents where the ball was in play.
ii) I think part of the assessment of how intentional or even reckless a challenge is is an assessment of the technical skills of the player involved. If the Dutch Bobby Moore does a knee high challenge like Pickford's you can assume it was deliberate as he is better at tackling. As a keeper I think he gets more leeway as his tackling might just be inept. He still could be sent off absent the offside, but it isn't directly comparable.
A bad challenge and foul, yes, but all of that is negated by the offside flag. If VVD had been onside it would have been a penalty and probable yellow/possible red card.
It was reckless but an accident. Thatís all there is to it.
The whole thing is a nonsense.
...if they were to retrospectively punish JP against their own regulations (i.e. they only allow It if the ref missed it) then they'd have to do it for every other similar case from now on.