Well, that's easily solved - clearly blocking a player from tapping is not on. And in any case, if you're dabbed, it's easy to get out of the way, no matter what the opposition is trying to do. I am trying to imagine a situation where an attacking player could block a dabbed player such as to keep him/her in the way of goal, and not be in the way of goal him/herself, but...
"clearly" blocking is wrong. But thats intent. If theres 4-5 players in the D, all attempting to play the ball, and the keeper dabs, you think we're going to get out the way? What if I cant move away because theres someone blocking me? Again, think about the restrictions nets and crossbars pose in terms of ways out for a keeper with 4 players surrounding him.
Or another example. We've all seen the "shoot slowly and hook the keepers mallet" approach. Automatic exclusion means that if that shot is blocked by the hooked keepers foot/bike after their foot hits the ground, you'd have to send the keeper off. What about a 2 on 1 play where I take out the keeper and the 2nd player shoots for his bike, then appeals to the ref? As long as that shot is heading for goal, thats disqualification.
"clearly" blocking is wrong. But thats intent. If theres 4-5 players in the D, all attempting to play the ball, and the keeper dabs, you think we're going to get out the way? What if I cant move away because theres someone blocking me? Again, think about the restrictions nets and crossbars pose in terms of ways out for a keeper with 4 players surrounding him.
Or another example. We've all seen the "shoot slowly and hook the keepers mallet" approach. Automatic exclusion means that if that shot is blocked by the hooked keepers foot/bike after their foot hits the ground, you'd have to send the keeper off. What about a 2 on 1 play where I take out the keeper and the 2nd player shoots for his bike, then appeals to the ref? As long as that shot is heading for goal, thats disqualification.