Simply happening to be a PIOP has always, and still is, sufficient for a whistle - you can become actively involved by standing still. But, only for some categories of offside.
This is a good decision for me.
The attacker isn't just 'happening to be there' - he's running INTO the path of the ball. Now, having to give it live, all you see is the shot taken, a PIOP having to jump over the ball and the keeper makes a delayed reaction and can't save it. That seems like a very solid 'blocking vision'. If you were at the ground live, there's no way you'd argue it wasn't.
Now, with this shot, the benefit of the behind-the-goal angle shows the keeper's view probably wasn't obstructed. Though personally, I think running at the ball and jumping over it in a situation like this meets the criteria of 'making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball'. The keeper clearly had to change his reaction because of that player. Now, if the player was just standing there, then the keeper's apparent delayed reaction is his problem. But by running into the path of the ball and jumping over it, the player has now done something himself.