A go-around should not be a difficult or unusual manoeuvre but a BAULKED LANDING is!
Procedurally, there is very little difference between the two. Yes, the engines may be at a lower power setting and may take a bit longer to spool up, but the procedures are essentially the same. And if only the main gear touched down and the nosegear did not (which would be the case if the aircraft lands long and the pilots elect to go around) the procedure is essentially the same. And in all cases the critical part of the procedure is to increase thrust. Because in all cases the maneuver requires increasing the energy state of the aircraft (
both airspeed and altitude must be increased, in this situation they cannot be traded). This
absolutely requires lots of thrust. Changing attitude (bringing the nose up) and/or changing configuration (changing flap and/or gear position) without also increasing thrust
will result in failure of the maneuver. For whatever reason, that appears to be what happened here; the pilots failed to ensure a sufficient increase in thrust. Clearly they had more than sufficient flying speed at touchdown because they traded that speed for 85 feet in altitude. But without more thrust, the outcome when they had used up their kinetic energy reserve was inevitable: the aircraft would descend. The only question is how severe will the impact be when the descending flight path intersects the ground? Fortunately the descent rate was low enough that the impact was survivable for all aboard and the aircraft held together enough to enable an orderly (well mostly) evacuation after the hull came to rest. Sadly, a firefighter subsequently died. One must wonder what the circumstances were of that tragedy. That death should (probably) not have happened.