I didn't notice anything...I'd retreated to the rear right stands behind the goal and was watching things unfold on the field and in the main stands.
Please, a DC player got hit in the nuts by a Beckham cross. He didn't use his hands to protect himself.
Security claimed one of our fans was flipping off Phelan when he was on the ground THEN claimed the fan was flipping off security. Bogus claims all around.
So, the Security Guard changed his story? Or is the claim that first he flipped off Phelan (people get thrown out for flipping off players at Patriots games, right?) and then he flipped off security? Because if he got thrown out for flipping off security, that's beyond weak. Life's rough, buy a helmet. One starts to get the sense that (in)Security's not going to be happy until we're all sitting in our seats quietly and giving each goal a polite golf clap.
Wow, no obligatory "That's because DC's players don't have nuts" comments? Just think about that Mike ... they said one of our supporters was flipping off a guy (never mind that he was ONE OF OUR PLAYERS) who went down like a sack of bricks ... right in front of the Fort. Just astounding. I heart security.
I wasn't there, I didn't watch it on TV, and I didn't even stay at a Motel 6 last night but... To me the discouraging part of this is that it represents yet another example of Security seems to be more concerned with cracking down on the Fort (the HOME fans) and not having time to get around to policing the visiting fans (see Brazil vs Ven for particularly egress examples of this). I mean, the Riders have a long term relationship with the team, they can review tapes and know that if they see a problem person they probably have season tickets and have leverage on them, if they see a trend they don't like they can call Monty (and other fan coordinators) and ask that the word be passed to cool it. They have time and tools to work with and they have to know that as a group the Riders WANT things to go well for everyone. So why does the Fort seem to get singled out for special attention?
Just read this thread, since I was at the match last night. There's something that needs to be clarified to the couple of trolls/idiots who don't know the LOTG. Intentionally handling the ball in the box is a red card offense and a PK. No red was given so **No One** called it an intentional hand ball. The point of discretion for a referee is did the ball play the hand and the player not have the opportunity to get it out of the way. If that's the case then there's no penalty. I only saw it real time -- bleeping DVR issues, but from the view I had it looked like he got the ball well out from his body. Unfortunate that a penalty decided the match, but definitely not the awful call that some have inferred. The offside call was far worse -- did anyone notice the far side AR who made the call look at the replay on the big screen and shake his head/shrug?
Well, IANAR any longer, but as I recall, intentional handling is worthy of a red card only if it's DOGSO, and there are a set of specific criteria that referees in the US are supposed to consider (direction of ball, distance from player, direction of player's movement, etc.) in order to determine that. They were not met in this case, so not awarding a red card proves nothing about the referee's opinion about intentional handling. Awarding a PK, however, does: it has to be intentional (in the opinion of the referee) in order for that to happen.
About the 70th minute I was advocating this as our best option Sub out Khano Sub in Dougie Move Reis to Forward
I was on the sideline, not the goal area, but on the sideline, it was the home fans that were the problem for security. The visiting fans demonstrated their impatience by whistling and chanting, the "home" fans directed their abuse at the visiting fans - and that's something that security should be very concerned about. The play can be ruled offside if the players in offside position did enough to distract the defense/keeper to affect the play. "Being involved in the play" goes beyond just attempting to play the ball. I'm not sure that was the way it was ruled, but it could have been if the defense reacted to the offside players. The two players who were in offside position, were WAY offside - I'm not sure I've seen a play allowed to continue when players were that far off.
Yeah, I was in 108 and the Pachuca fans behavior was definitely irritating by our standards, but I thought some of the reaction was over the top. Starting a loud "Revolution" chant is OK, but some folks looked close to apoplexy over it and that seems like too much to me. The standard is "involved in play", and based on the "Advice to Referees" that US Soccer provides, simply being "WAY offside" or even "distracting the defense" is insufficient to justify a call. Defenders are expected to know enough to ignore people who are offside and not actively interfering with them. Getting in their way, attempting to play the ball, etc., is a different story, of course. Now, that having been said, the ATR applies only to US Soccer-affiliated referees, and the interpretation may be slightly different elsewhere. Perhaps nsa (who taught one of my certification courses back when I was a ref) might comment.