Stonewaller says Hartley and Neil

Both say that the penalty was a stonewaller. Got me wondering why two professions who have played the game thought that it was a Stonewaller, not coulod have been a pen, but stonewaller. Patellaeinan also thought it could have been given. I thought there was contact, but not enough for Stokes to go down. So why a stonewaller?

I think it was John Hartson who described the penalty incident saying that the tackle had come from behind and the the Killie player had not got the ball, but that there was some contact on Stokes.

The tackle from behind is outlawed and deemed a foul unless the player makes contact with the ball. The Killie player did not and at the same time he made a little contact with Stokes. Now I am willing to accept that Collum did not see any contact (we have had two favourable decisions from him this season, in which he could not disallow goals unless he was 100% sure, same thing here) and as such he booked Stokes and awarded the foul to Killie. In his eyes quite right, but given the replays on TV, I wondered why Hartley was so emphatic and why Neil was like minded. My only conclusion can be the explanation that John Hartson gave.
1. Tackle was from behind.
2. Killie player made no contact with the ball.
3. He made some contact with Stokes.

I concede that there was not enough for Stokes to go down, but given 1 and 2 above....................did there need to be????