The Battle of Omagh part II - Role reversal

[Stall the Bailer]

A goal keeper can't tackle differently but as they are mainly shot stoppers rather than tacklers, unlike outfield players, they are more likely to trip a player while attempting to block a shot than a defender who usually is trying to dispossess an attacker. The foul on Sunday may well have deserved a black card, I'm talking more about generalities with goalkeepers rather than that specific foul.

It is easy to tell if they are trying to block a shot or if they are tripping a player.
In blocking, the attacker with be attempting to shoot. In tripping, the attacker will still have ball in hand.

[Zulu]

But you can fake a shot to commit the keeper and then retain the ball so it isn't that clear cut.

[Stall the Bailer]

So you would have gave McManoman black card on Sunday going by your points A&B.

No, I think McM was trying to tackle the ball and I think the Tyrone man could stay on his feet. Being knocked due to a collision of bodies is different than dragging a guy down.

Fair enough.
However others thought it was delibrate and this is where the problem is.
It is was delibrate then a black card would be correct as pulling a man backwards means he will lose balance and fall to the ground.

[Stall the Bailer]

But you can fake a shot to commit the keeper and then retain the ball so it isn't that clear cut.

A fake shot will mean the keeper will be on the ground trying the block. Like a defender buying a dummy. Still not an issue.

[Zulu]

Not necessarily so. I played in goal a lot when I was younger and I would always attempt to get right down on the boot when a player was shooting (obviously in situations where in wasn't far from the goal) and so I'd throw myself out on the boot, now if the guy dummy soloed or didn't drop the ball to the boot at all I could well have connected with him rather than the ball and so would have deserved a black card by your interpretation. However, I never intended or deliberately took the guy down so I don't think it is a black card.

We could probably go around this a few more times but the point I'm making is that any foul has to be clearly deliberate to be a black card and the nature of goalkeeping means that you may take down players unintentionally more easily than outfield players. However, irrespective of your playing position if it is deliberate then it is a black card.

[Stall the Bailer]

Not necessarily so. I played in goal a lot when I was younger and I would always attempt to get right down on the boot when a player was shooting (obviously in situations where in wasn't far from the goal) and so I'd throw myself out on the boot, now if the guy dummy soloed or didn't drop the ball to the boot at all I could well have connected with him rather than the ball and so would have deserved a black card by your interpretation. However, I never intended or deliberately took the guy down so I don't think it is a black card.

We could probably go around this a few more times but the point I'm making is that any foul has to be clearly deliberate to be a black card and the nature of goalkeeping means that you may take down players unintentionally more easily than outfield players. However, irrespective of your playing position if it is deliberate then it is a black card.

This is still the same as I said before, where the attacker is attempting a shot. A dummy shot or actual shot will look the same to the keeper and the ref.
However, when an attacker has the ball in hand and the keeper dives at his feet is different. (no dummy shot/shot)

[Zulu]

As I said we seem to either not understand each other or there's a bit of misinterpretation of the situation we are trying to convey, either way I don't think we are getting any closer to a resolution.