I can understand those who say "No foul" because the play can be seen from either point of view if you choose to say the contact was result of good agressive play by both players.
To me the question is at what point does a ref have to say "Ok, if I allow this type of play I am responsible for the injuries that come with it?".
Ask yourself this, if he calls the foul for a "dangerous" play because of the excessive contact, how critical can anyone be of the call? Do we then say, "Well he robbed the team of a goal because he was protecting a player"? Which side of the argument would you rather be on if the keeper ( or fwd for that matter) was severely injured?
I am more than comfortable saying that I would rather err on the side of player safety when there is a doubt.
