I don't believe we disagree on the need to protect players (whether they be goalkeepers or field players) from the "dangerous play" of others, but at what point a player's actions should be considered "dangerous" (or, if you prefer, "too aggressive")
To attempt to clarify what I'm talking about, let's say that "potential contact" between attacker and goalkeeper is ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "attacker too aggressive," and 10 being "goalkeeper too aggressive." Let's define "potential contact" as a keeper and an attacker approaching each other, with the ball between them (not just them getting ready to shake hands) and both players are attempting to gain control of the ball.
What exactly is a "1-10" is not important at the moment, just assume for the sake of argument that you have 100 referees standing there, and they all agree (yeah, I realize that is illogical in and of itself).
Assume that a ranking of 5 means that attacker and goalkeeper are both approaching the ball at the same speed, have an equal chance of gaining possession first, and this is considered fair play, there is no foul, no dangerous play, etc. (however you want to word it, consider it a 50/50 ball).
Assume that currently, all referees consider anything above or below a 5 ranking to be considered dangerous play (and thus, called a foul, illegal, etc).
What I believe you are wanting to do is move the location of a 5, to what is currently a 3 or a 4, so that more emphasis is placed on goalkeeper safety. So, now, the level of attacker-aggressiveness that is considered acceptable has been lowered. Is this correct?
What I'm saying is that, if this happens, there are plenty of goalkeepers who will recognize this and take advantage of it. And some of them will start playing more aggressively, knowing that there is a very good chance the referee will make a call in their favor.
Not illogical at all - it is otherwise known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
