You're both right, obviously - my poorly worded point is that anywhere else on the pitch no player can be making a legitimate football play by diving with arms outstretched at the ball, so the context of the decision changes as it must surely be an illegal body check. In this case though, it wasn't that at all - it was incidental contact as a result of perfectly normal play by both players that resulted, as I have said, in no harm or foul.
You can argue all you like here but it's akin to shouting about how the doctors don't know as much as you when it comes to telling you what to put in your body. Believe it or not, the officials almost always know what they're doing. That the ref on the pitch and the officials on the replay both came to the conclusion that there was no need for further review requires a belief in either a collective incompetence or a conspiracy, both of which are highly unlikely.