In fairness to the OP, on the boys end, there are a lot of keepers like this. Can't tell you how many times at 8, 9, 10 years old I see big hulking kids who can't run being put in goal because they can't play the field. The expectation at that age from a goalkeeper really should just be to stop balls that are hit directly to them, and those boys are big enough that they can do it and cover a large part of the goal. The problem is when they hit 11-13 they are expected to start diving....they have to in order to be effective as they move into the larger goal,and as strikers begin to learn to not shoot it directly at the keeper which also happens about this age. Some can still hang in there because they are beasts on defending the corner or scare the smaller strikers on 1 v 1 but without losing the weight they can't begin to develop the dive. And since they haven't' played on field they can't use their feet so eventually they are no longer of value to the team. They either give up (sometimes replaced by a superathletic kid or baseball player the coach has ID) or are replaced by the boys who have been training the position.Gee Michael, why stop with keepers who risk looking bad? We should go back to the old rules to protect all defenders who risk looking bad.
The 1863 Cambridge rules allowed all players to use their hands to bat down a ball and even to catch it in the air. If a defender was at risk of humiliation because he could not dispossess a dribbler, well, no problem! He could legally run over a dribbler if that's what it took.
After reading your posts, all I can conclude is that you were a goalkeeper who could not competently handle the ball with your feet. In a self-serving effort to ameliorate your public oafishness, you want to dumb down the rules so that incompetent stumble-bums look useful.
As for me and every other person I know, we will take rules that speed up the game and demand ball-control skills from every player on the field.