WJ's original post on this event was that it was a good goal if it hadn't been for the referee assistant beckoning James Craigen away. Perfectly correct. But the assistant did shush the player away.
Let's look at the corner. Did the player who took the corner move the ball as outlined in law 17? Yes he must have. If not the dribbler took and played from the corner,and took more than one touch. Indirect free kick.
Was James Craigen permitted to intervene? In the circumstances outlined above, yes.
The goal was allowed. What law permitted the referee to change the decision? Law 5 outlines the referees' authority. Law 5.3 outlines the referee's power and duties. Law 5.3 defines " outside interference". It defines interference as " stops, suspends or abandons the match for any offences or because of outside interference e.g. if.....
I remember vividly my mentor Tiny Wharton telling me yonks ago that the laws of football are written to allow that most important intervention of common sense to be used. That flexibility hasn't changed, to my mind. The e.g. above is all-encompassing, not prescriptive.
Did waving James Craigen away trigger "outside interference " ? I believe that the referee thought so. If James Craigen hadn't gone to intercept the corner, the dribbler went on and the outcome was the goal, we would have no option other than to salute the goal. That didn't happen . The referee's powers in Rule 3 include "acts on the advice of other officials. " I believe that the assistant would have been happy if the ball had been blasted over the bar. He had the guts to acknowledge the mistake and brought about a fair outcome.