Originally posted by DST
What bullsh*t, would you prefer your defenders at all times when the ball is 50 meters away stand at least three feet away from their direct opponent so no contact was made? Because that is what you are advocating.
Um, no.
There is a big difference between body contact and a force that would knock a player to the ground.
The tribunal should have just said that Grant was faking and the contact (or force of) would in no way have resulted in him feeling such pain - i.e. he was faking! They obviously took Halls word more than Grant (not that he was prepared to say much).
I ask you, if a player ends up on the turf a considerable distance off the ball (if Collis doen't believe this was off the ball then he knows nothing about football), with force enough to cause him obvious pain (regardless of it being the head), then there are really only two explanations : 1) he is faking it or 2) he was hit, be it a strike or a charge.
So if it is 1) then why not say it when passing a verdict. Why not fine/suspend Grant for giving false evidence?
But if he was telling the truth, then Hall should have to explain his actions. Given his record I doubt you'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Balance of probabilities? But hey that would be common sense.