In that case
Well in that case:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/13141920513
And sometimes f6 is a book move such as in the Englund Gambit/Stockholm variation:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/35255760861
Fortunately I won but missed a crushing tactic with rook d to g8 on the 20th move that would of won on the spot.
May be I should question book moves once in a while?
Alternatively, following the rules and finding out that blindly following the rules can lead to mistakes also accomplishes the same thing. It teaches the lesson that concrete analysis supercedes everything else. Not following the rules or following the rules, you're eventually going to learn this lesson. The question becomes, is it better to tell a beginner that they should analyze concretely the position when they don't even know what that means, or give general guidance first, then fill in the blanks later. Telling a novice to engage in concrete analysis every move is a tough ask.
I was following a 500-rated streamer and she would constantly be throwing her pawns out making one move threats and by the middle game, her king was always walking up the board avoiding checks. To her, it seemed like a good idea because "ooh! I'm making a threat!." I must have told her a dozen times "never play f3/f6 because it severely weakens your king." Of course she shot back "always?!?!? it can't be always" and I said "no, not always, but if there's another move you can play first that's seems just as good, trust me, do that first. There's a reason why your king is always going for a walk. Just don't play f3/f6 in order to keep your king safe, and try to castle. After that, her king started getting a lot less exercise.