RateTheRef

Whilst I agree it is cynical, there is nothing in the laws that allow for an upgrade, if DOGSO is not applied

Exactly, the officials can only look at the criteria needed for DOGSO, which are ...

- Distance between offence and goal.  This was quite a long way although not too far.
- General direction of the play.  He's wide and that counts against the obviousness of it.
- Likelihood keeping or gaining control of the ball.  Ticks this one.
- Location and number of defenders.  Chilwell looks a long way away, but he is central and that potentially makes the distance shorter.

So I'd say one of those is a definite yes, and the other three are more maybes.  They don't all have to be met, but (and this isn't an official method) if we score 1 for yes, 0 for no and 0.5 for maybe, that is 2.5 out of 4.  Is that enough to make it an OGSO?  I don't think so personally, any maybes question the word obvious, three of them majorly question it. 

There is absolutely nothing in law to say that it being cynical, which this undoubtedly was, should or can be considered in the decision making process.