Lets agree to disagree then.
There is no error, striker was fouled, pk awarded, gk is off, its totally acceptable for this course of action.
As said, each to own, the coaching was give the pk unless the ball is on the goal line and the striker only has to fall on the ball to score. Am satisfied with the advice that was given, and where it came from.
Wherever or whoever preaches different, am sure thats acceptable too
There was a clear error. Referee is required to apply advantage here. He failed to do so and denied the team a clear goal.
I'd prefer to think for myself than blindly follow coaching. I'm sure we all have examples of where even high level teachers/instructors have said things which either make no sense or are in direct contradiction of the law.
Either your instructor was wrong, or he didn't convey his point properly, or wasn't considering a situation as....well, this one is black and white for me and this would be a KMI failure on my assessment. We're not talking about a situation where the ball 'might' pop free and you know that if you hold the whistle, then there's a shot, and maybe another challenge, and you're then stuck where you can sell either decision. Those often happen and are lose-lose situations for the referee. Maybe he was talking about those.
I can't imagine he was talking about this scenario where you very clearly have an impending goal and if it's cleared, you're not going to wait further - you're clearly going to go back to the foul IF that happens.
In short, I can't imagine your instructor actually advised you to not look for the near-certain goal. And if he did - then he needs to go back to the LOTG.
As for your comment about 'coaching was to give the PK unless the ball is on the GL and the striker only has to fall on the ball to score'
Well.....that's the case here. Except the striker didn't even HAVE to fall on the ball to score. Not on the goal line, perhaps, but rolling with some pace into a completely open net. I very much doubt he meant 'literally, sitting above that black paint and not an inch off it'
So if that's what you were taught, then even by your teaching, this is a goal.
There's just no rationale for not holding the whistle and denying the goal here. None whatsoever.
I can understand why you'd seek the opportunity to play advantage in a dogso-yellow situation, but in such a blantant dogso-red, I can't help but feel the game, and match control is best served by the goalie walking, and having a week off.
Blow the whistle and tell the team they can't have the goal even though the ball trickled into an open net then tell me how great that was for your match control.
Advantage REQUIRES the goal.
Does the keeper deserve a red? Maybe, maybe not - but if the ball goes into the goal the law don't permit the red. It's not your job to rob one team of a goal because you think 'oh, he deserves something'.
And of course, trying to stop a goal isn't the same as stopping a goal.
I think plenty of offences deserve something different to what's in the law, but I have to apply the law.
And there's nothing more advantageous than a goal. So why would I go out of my way to hurt the team that was infringed against because I have some moral opinion that isn't supported by law?