How is it fair to punish the keeper for the actions of another player?
You're having the players tell you what is cautionable. You're cautioning the keeper based on the decisions of the opponents!!
How is it fair that you've cautioned the keeper for something the opponents did?
Also, I don't think you know what 'consistent' means. 'Consistent' doesn't mean that if you card one player, you also need to card everybody else around him. Consistent means that your decisions are roughly the same for equivalent instances.
In fact, your approach is highly inconsistent. Because what you're saying is that if the red keeper dances over the ball and there's no reaction you'll let it go, but if the blue keeper dances over the ball and is pushed, you'll caution him for being pushed (as well as the attacker who pushed him).
You just said that's not what you're saying. Now it is what you're saying.
So, I'm presuming that every single time a player pushed an opponent who fouled him - or perhaps didn't even foul him - you're cautioning the first player for being pushed?
I wasn't aware that 'being the target of an action' was a cautionable offence.