WATCH: Victory, City combine for 2-2 classic

For years, I have seen the argument similar to yours many times. With VR in place, the main referee is supposed to have absolute power (like a king) in the match as usual. With VR in use, the main referee only calls the 5th VR referee to help him to make a decision when only the main referee does not have a high confidence of making a good decision. It is not passing the refereeing to the screen. Not at all! If the main referee thinks he has confidence in making a good decision, he does not need to refer to the 5th Video referee. Yes, there are occasions in which it is difficult to make a decision even VR has been called. However, firstly, the occasions are very rare. In the Rugby League situation, there may be too many players blocking the view. In the cricket situation, this seldom happens. Still, if the Video Referee cannot make up his mind, he passes the decision back to the main referee to decide. Despite not a rugby fan, I have seen this couple of times. Your argument against VR is based on the fact that "there are still possible errors". However, it is not expecting error free. With VR to assist, the main referee should be able to make good decisions more regularly. Sorry, I don't quite agree that VR is a joke in Rugby and Cricket (that I have seen). Yes, Hawk-eye works in soccer as goal-line tech and tennis. However, the discussion here started with the focus on the cost. If A-league can afford goal-line tech, I don't think anyone (including me) will object.

I don't want VR .. ever. VR just means you pass the decision-making to a person in front of a screen. Even after slow-motion replays, from every angle, we generally can't ever reach 100% consensus on what is a handball, a foul in the box, a goal-scoring opportunity, etc. The reason GLT works is that it is not asking a human to make a decision. It uses technology to decide 1 fact: was the whole of the ball, over the whole of the line. It's either Yes, or No. VR is used by AFL, NRL, Rugby, Cricket. And from what is reported, VR is a complete joke in these sports. Hawk-eye works - for GLT & for tennis

FIUL You are exactly right. However, the VR (video refereeing, or video replay) is much cheaper. That was the point. Indeed, there are many factors needing adjustment if VR is adopted. Anyhow, the cost is also a factor. More importantly, FIFA is an organisation which does not want to be told.

Qantas & SBS support Australian Football PS I would like to add a bit on what I ve said minutes ago. I forgot to talk about the other aspects of VR. By VR (video refereeing or video replay), the main referee can be assisted not only to determine a goal has passed the baseline (or not). VR can also help the main referee to make other decisions, such as offside, infringements at the back of him, or handball etc. That is why it is very controversial. Because to the above, VR is not only different in technology, but different in the system of refereeing. Both VR and Goal-line technolgy are technologies. However, VR is not a kind of Goal-line technology.

Qantas & SBS support Australian Football Argg....................... You reply shows that you are not quite an Australian sport person or watcher. However, your alias has Qantas and SBS. I is interesting. For more than 2 decades, Australian cricket has been using VR (video refereeing). So is rugby league. I am not sure about rugby rugby union. If you do not know VR (video refereeing or video replay) in Australia, it is a bit strange I'm afraid. As for Australian Open (tennis), the technology is not VR. I think you need to watch to understand. Rugby League is about to start. Watch some matches, especially State of Origin. In the 90s of last century, the then Australia Football Association had already showed FIFA head, Blatter, the way VR is conducted. However, Blatter did not like it. Many people questioned about VR. Only very recently, FIFA had started to use Goal-Line Technology which is not VR at all. Mainly, there were two types. The one being used now has a watch type alarm attached at the main referee's wrist. Vibration and sound will go if the ball has cross the goal line. If you want to know more, you should google and do your own research. I have been advocating VR in SBS's TWG for more than half a decade. So, almost all questions raised by people against it have been addressed. Maybe, you can read Video referee, 4.3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league_match_officials#Video_referee) in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league_match_officials.

FIUL - you dissed a previous commenter for referring to flares in the plural. Learn to count was more or less the import of what you said. You owe him an apology. Shifting the goalposts, as you're now trying to do (ie the flares don't count if they're before the game, outside the field, two isn't more than one, etc etc) is classic goal-post shifting, which is an odd strategy for a football aficionado.

I'm reading directly from VicPol's official statement that was posted by VicPol Media. I don't care how many flares were lit outside the stadium, or how many MVFC fans were nabbed by speed cameras on the way to the game or way home from the game. MVFC is only responsible for behaviour of its fans inside stadiums when MVFC is playing. MVFC is NOT responsible for MVFC fans: - outside stadiums - at matches not involving MVFC - when they're at home, - when they go out to dinner - when they're out shopping - when they go overseas etc etc etc

Nice sidestep. Vicpol says nine flares, 7 outside, 2 inside, which is what the journo's reported. Flares, plural.

Fuss - "As far as I know this is the 1st time a goal has been incorrectly adjudicated" .... there's been several but what does that have to do with anything?

Horto - I think we might be getting off track. Would I be p*ssed if it happened to Roar? Yes and if you want to read how I react check out my comments after the Roar v Victory game last year when your player scuffed the turf and got a penalty for the only goal of the game. It happens .... but I won't talk to Perth fans about it ;) I'm not sure why you think I'm being pedantic - the ball crossed the line, a goal should have been awarded. Is that clear enough? the goal was not allowed to gain the "dis" but I presume you're not being technical and are rightly peeved

Fuss, putting the flares aside that's not a bad report. My guess would be that would be comparable to many events at AAMI, if not better?

Victoria Police have listed the 20 evictions from last night. I'll use VicPol data before anything that any journo reports. http://vicpolicenews.com.au/news/9176-soccer-results.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"should I be saying “bottle” or “bottles” thrown. It’s a bit confusing you see?" Not at all confusing. There was more than 1 bottle thrown, therefore we use the plural.

those in the stadium for the Wanderers game and those in the stadium for the City game, both had flares set off right but on a completely different scale I would say, yes? But does the FFA tread the same punishment path or not this week? Expectations are for a "show cause notice" tomorrow and the tone in the Sydney press is like-like is only fair.

FFS. You're lecturing people on the laws of the game now?? Ha Ha, made my day .....

Yes Ian, but when you're MV somehow you're meant to be special :)

Here's the SMH report of the game: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/aleague-victory-fans-rip-flares-as-derby-night-ends-in-arrests-20160213-gmtj12.html Also, the FFA has released a statement about flares being ripped inside and outside the ground.

Perhaps you could email the FFA, they seem to care, not me Fuss, but maybe while we're on the topic should I be saying "bottle" or "bottles" thrown. It's a bit confusing you see?

I was at the match, there was 1 flare lit. If you have evidence of others, please let me know - I've got the match recorded, so I'll have a look.

I'm not discussing flares, I'm discussing English grammar.