190. Initial penalty stroke award changed

I'm not sure what it was the umpire though he saw that justified the award of a penalty stroke but he changed his mind and awarded a penalty corner instead.
But was a penalty corner justified?

A defender is hit with the ball that the goalkeeper has tried to bat out of play with his hand protector. Not dangerous play because of a recent (silly) change to Rule which states that only opponents may be endangered by a playing action that propels the ball at another player.

The defender hit with the ball did not commit an offence, unless the goalkeeper's action was seen as deliberately (trying to put )the ball out of play over the base-line and the defender's contact prevented that, and the award of a penalty corner, happening (a very odd one that, more than a bit shaky). I think the ball went out of play anyway off the defender, so play-on would have been a restart to the attackers on the 23m line - that was possibly the correct decision.

[ZigZagHockey]

I got a reply to my question via the Facebook Hockey Rules Discussion Group. The ball from the second flick shot hit the defender on the head before deflecting onto the post. The shot was made from beyond the penalty spot and was not made directly at the defender, so why the change of mind ? If there was good reason not to award a penalty stroke it is also likely there was good reason not to award a penalty corner and possibly a 23m restart should have been ordered.