If by met you mean the Fwd ran into the keeper as ball arrived then yes it was at same time. I do not hink you can say the keep ran into or got in path of fwd is such a way that fwd could not avoid running her over (just my opinion from watching video, which could be understandably different for others). To me the fwd's contact with the keeper interfered with her(keepers) ability to continue playing the ball. Intentional or not her contact was made in an effort to play a ball she was not in control of and one the keeper was about to be in control of. Without the fwds contact I believe the keeper easily captures the ball, but had the keeper be one or two step back I do not think the fwd would have had "control" of the ball at the point of impact. To me this means it was not a 50/50 ball because the fwd had much less chance of gaining control of the ball at the point of contact than the keeper. If the fwd touches(notice I said touches, not controls) the ball with minimal contact with keeper than I would say no foul, else in intrest of protecting keepers from the fact that all balls are 50/50 until controled I would call an interference foul. (based on what you wrote "50/50 ball. Keeper didn't have any type of possession")
