I think that's arguably defensible and does open up an interesting discussion around if a player not realising they have an advantage neutralises that advantage and/or if we can penalise for trifling fouls if the outcome a few second later means they're later seen to be less trifling than initially thought. We have to accept AT has seen a foul where there isn't one, but that's just a standard error in judgement and it then opens up that other question.
But 1) he's then got the restart wrong and 2) why does he feel the need to tell the keeper to act injured? Even taking that charitable read, we're back to the subterfuge, and the fact that he's killed some clock in attempting to hide/cover for the mistake(s). If he's "cancelling an advantage" then just do that and get on with the free kick, don't tell the keeper to go down and waste some time and then restart pretending like it was a genuine injury!
But 1) he's then got the restart wrong and 2) why does he feel the need to tell the keeper to act injured? Even taking that charitable read, we're back to the subterfuge, and the fact that he's killed some clock in attempting to hide/cover for the mistake(s). If he's "cancelling an advantage" then just do that and get on with the free kick, don't tell the keeper to go down and waste some time and then restart pretending like it was a genuine injury!