This time it was during a heated and controversial period of extra time in the Chelsea v Norwich FA Cup tie during the week, when the premiership giants were denied a penalty, two of their players were booked for diving and they ended up with nine men before prevailing over the Championship side in a penalty shoot-out.

But it could just as easily have been in Germany, where the introduction of the video assistant refereeing program has sparked outrage on more than one occasion, or in Australia, where the sense of bewilderment and frustration over the new referral system grows each week.

The VAR is new FIFA boss Gianni Infantino's baby. He has pushed the use of technology even though most in the professional game believe it only brings confusion, exasperation and anger both on the pitch and in the stands.

Infantino insisted it was used in the Confederations Cup last year, and there is every likelihood it will be used in the World Cup this year, despite the fears of confusion, resentment, bitterness and the very real prospect of crowd trouble that it might provoke.

The International Football Association Board is due to review the results of trials that have been taking place all over the world later this month with a view to making a decision on its further implementation later this year.

While no-one in the sport disputes the notion that soccer should avail itself of technology, there seems to very little support from players or fans, particularly here in Australia, for the game to be changed in such a fundamental way.

The use of goal-line technology would be widely approved: that's a simple and straightforward decision which can be settled on review. The ball either crosses the line or it doesn't. We all remember howlers where the ball went in but a goal wasn't given: as a Tottenham fan I am still incensed that Pedro Mendes' long-range strike at Old Trafford against Manchester United a decade ago - which clearly went at least a metre over the line - was not given. Goal-line reviews would have settled that without any controversy.

But VAR for other decisions? I am definitely in the no camp here.

I am not a Luddite, but I believe - as many in the game have expressed, including Western Sydney Wanderers coach, Josep Gombau - that continual disruption and stoppage of matches to review incidents strikes at the very soul of the sport.

It damages the rhythm and the flow, it breaks up play, destroys the ambience, the fervour and mood in the stands and will eventually change the way the game is played.

Some sports do have "natural" breaks. Cricket is perfect for review systems, as there is a pause after each delivery. Ditto tennis, after each point.

But soccer's joy, its appeal, is its constant movement, its free-flowing spirit, the pace, speed and precision with which the game flows.

The VAR is like some heavy-handed, joyless jobsworth who tells kids to sit down during matches when they are rushing to the front to be closer to their heroes, or some clueless bouncer who tells concert goers to sit down when they are bopping and dancing in the aisles. It just impacts so negatively on the experience.

Yes, say some, but none of that matters if correct decisions are made.

But will they be? After all, the eye in the sky is merely one other referee's view on an incident, albeit with the advantage of replays and slow motion from myriad angles. But that doesn't mean he or she will necessarily get it right.

The game is also about mistakes, too. Players make loads of them. Most goals are scored as a result of mistakes or sloppy play. Referees make far fewer, I would suggest, than players; when they do they are excoriated far more than any striker who misses an open goal.

Sport is about human endeavour. Humans are not perfect, so perfect decision-making is impossible. Technology has its benefits, but in my view the upside of the VAR is outweighed by the downside: the damage to the fabric of the sport and the undermining of the refereeing decision-making process, where the pressure of constant television and replay analysis may force all but those of the strongest character to refer any contentious call to the eye in the sky.

The PFA, the Australian players' union, conducted a survey of its members in December on the issue. About one-third responded, large enough to be fairly representative. Only one player then thought the VAR was a good thing, while 78 per cent were unconvinced. Another 28 per cent said it needed more time.

Two-thirds of the respondents were not confident correct decisions were being made. And while 44 per cent said yes, they would rather correct decisions were made, another 56 per cent said they would rather the game continued to flow than it be constantly stopped to ensure decisions were reviewed to make sure they were absolutely right.

For its part, the FFA has reacted to criticism in the early weeks of the season, telling match officials to use the technology sparingly so as not to disrupt games as much.

But it will continue the trial until the end of the season.

"Feedback from A-League clubs is that the intervention and minor changes made a few weeks ago have improved the process," A-League boss Greg O'Rourke says.

"We are happy with its progress and believe that in nearly all cases this year has arrived at the correct result

"The change has been difficult and we appreciate that the fans, players and coaches have not all felt good about all aspects of the VAR and its implementation.

"'But we have responded to these views and fine-tuned its applications to ensure the impact met our original intention on minimal interruption and maximum benefit. We should not lose sight that it continues to deliver the right decisions and as such produces the correct match result."