Goalies aren't mandated to play the puck behind the net. Why is this so hard for people to grasp. Goalies aren't forced to play the puck behind the net. The crease they're safe and generally untouchable. There is ZERO reason why they should be untouchable when they stop playing goalie.
I get it.. People don't agree and see your point so there's ZERO reason why they should be untouchable. That's all you keep saying. You haven't gotten 1 reason. Why, because it doesn't fit with the conclusion you've already drawn? You haven't clarified what untouchable means. There's untouchable by bumps and board battles and then there's untouchable by taking a hit.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp what people are actually saying? Nobody said goalies are mandated to play the puck behind the net, but guess what, they do. So now you want to toss in that they're fair game as if that's going to completely stop goalies from doing that? It won't. All you're doing is now creating a situation where goalies are going to either take the risk, be a shell of their former self by not playing the puck, or put them in vulnerable situations where they hesitate on decision making plays.
Your initial point was this is slowing the game down. They create picks and play the puck and it's stopping the flow of the game. Is that still your point, or have you now moved on to "it's unfair that other players get hit and they don't when they take up open space outside the net?" If it's still the former, then I stand by what I said in 2 different responses, if you want to speed up the game by eliminating puck play and picks, then you create a solution where the goalies can't do that. You don't create a situation where the goalie has to make a choice of getting run over, or making the right play. That's not how you fix a problem. That's like saying "If goalies want to play the puck and create picks that slow them down, then f*** them, we're gonna make them pay and think twice about it.
With that said, I completely understand the argument that accidental contact / slight bumps shouldn't be called a penalty, it's not fair to be completely untouchable, but I suppose the counter argument to that is where do you draw the line? Where do you determine accidental and what's slight? Because of that line it's probably easier to just eliminate it all together.
Goalies need to be protected in someway, there is no counter-argument to that, not from you, not from anybody. How they protect the goalie is where the debates come in.