Locked center pawns

I had recently watched a video from Dan Heisman where he made a passing remark that when the center pawns are locked, one should attack the opponent in the direction in which his own pawns are facing. 

For example, in the French Defense / Advance Variation, white should attack black on the king side because his pieces have more room to operate on that side.  Since learning this principle a few days ago, I have played two games where the center pawns were locked. In both of these games, I followed this principle and attacked following this principle, and it resulted in a win for me both times.

Here is my most recent game that I won by following this principle:

I only wish that I had learned this principle earlier in my (6 month) chess career, because I feel as if this would have translated into more wins.

In many situations, as Dan Heisman put it, the game turns into a race once the center pawns are locked.  In these situations, one side cannot possibly hold off the onslaught of the other side, and the best chance to save the game is to attack your opponent on the opposite side of the board. 

Are there any openings that result in locked pawns, but this principle should not be followed?

In your game, the enemy king just happens to castle queenside

Black missed mate at 16... Rb1#!!!

It shouldn't be followed to the exclusion of everything else.  Like padman said it's a good rule because in chess mobility often = force.  Sometimes though in a french advanced or similar situation it pays to shore up on your "opponant's side"

Lets say in an english where white will be playing on the queenside.  Black may have a few reasons to take time to advance on that side even though in our imaginary position it's "white's" area due to his space. 

1. trading pawns can limit the number of potential targets (often the point of a queenside attack).  2.  He may be able to temporarily frustrate (or even blockade) white's advance giving black more time to operate in another area. 

3. Black may even be better prepared for a break on "his opponent's" side of the board due to development or superior numbers which completely negates the idea of it being one players side of the board in the first place.

I had #3 happen to me once when I attacked my opponents king in a french like formation.  I advanced my pawns to open kingside lines only to find out it was my opponent who gained a winning advantage due to his better pieces.

All in all this is a very useful idea and it's definitely a good one to know.  You asked for some counter examples but I hope they don't turn you off to this very sound principal (attack where your pawns point).  At the same time I hope it guards you against playing too dogmatically and encourages a critical look at any position before deciding on a plan :)