Surely the whole point of injury time is that it makes up for stoppages?
Of course, and that's not really a bad thing this way. I'm totally against stopping the chronometer each time the ball is out as it's done in Basket-ball, Hockey or NFL. The issue of such a thing is that it breaks the game, something which generally turns out to divide it in disconnected sequences. This is something totally at the opposite of the spirit of a game such as football, which is meant to be played as a single continuum, with no breaks.
Now this being said, in watching the rugby world cup, I did find interesting the idea that the referee could stop the chronometer if uncontrolled events would lead to a long stop of the play. For instance, I'm sick of players pretending to be injured at the 80th minute with the sole purpose of stealing few minutes to avoid the opponents scoring back. Another thing which I do find annoying are the coaches who replace players at the 89th minute or even during the extra-time for the same reason of saving time. I believe it would be more honnest to stop the clock during substitutions. Of course, substitutions would still break the opponents rythm but at least the issue would be partially solved.
I never thought about this in-between solution before watching rugby, and I really believe this is a great feature as it preserves the single continuum principle of the sport while avoiding taking advantage of it to not play it fair.
I'm not keen on the yellow card rule as I agree with Catharsis that there is too much variability...
Well, if the rule would change, it's obvious that yellow cards wouldn't be distributed as randomly as it is currently. And it's exactly that random distribution which I believe show how limited is the current rule. The problem of the yellow card is that it's essentially a warning... as in "next time beware". It fails to be a deterring sanction. Let's take few examples.
Too many strikers are tempted to dive when they realized their opportunity to score is gone. This could lead sometimes to a yellow card when the referee feels enough sure that there was no foul. However, you'll never see the referee giving a second yellow card (meaning a red card) if the striker is caught diving again during the game. The problem is that most referee would judge this to be exagerated. As a result, a diver knows he doesn't risk being sent off because of diving, and he tends to abuse of this, especially during tense games. A 10-minute penalty would actually be a good balance to avoid such a bias. It would be a real deterrent for strikers, without being felt as being an exagerated sanction.
Another example would be players yelling at the referee. They generally know they risk a yellow card but they don't really care, as it's well-known a second yellow card is never attributed as easily as the first one anyway. If arguing to the referee, even once and mildly, could lead to 10 minutes out of the pitch, players would think it twice before endlessly arguing with him.
Anyway, all this to say that if a yellow card would lead to an immediate sanction, then it's obvious it would become more meaningful and thus distributed less randomly. Cause let's try to be honnest, the fact yellow cards are distributed so randomly proves in the first place that it's not something really considered as serious by anyone (neither the referee, nor the player).
and I don't really see the need for video referring although I would like to see the automatic ball crossing the line technology.
How does anyone can say that the video is not necessary? Without video, Zidane would have never been sent off during the 2006 World Cup final... would you consider this as fair?
How to judge if there's penalty or if there's no penalty? How to judge if a scored goal wasn't on an off-side position in case of doubt. Of course, video shouldn't be used excessively, but in rugby it's not the case as it is. Now, what seems obvious to me is that the video rule should be applied only if the referee is able to stop the chronometer (as in rugby).
Anyway, the thing is that the football field referee is the most powerful referee in all sports. Even juries in ice skating are less powerful (because they are more than one). The sanctions he can use are determined by an "all or nothing" state of mind. Either you're sent off permanently or you're not sent off at all. Either there's a penalty or there's no foul. Either the goal is valid or it's not. I don't believe this is necessarily bad, I just say that considering how important are the referee's decision for the game, it seems natural to me that he should benefit of video to double check if he took the right decision.
Frankly, what's the point of a game where a German goal can send a French forward to the hospital with no foul being even
whistled... and all this to qualify his team to the WC final in all impunity? We ask to referees to be Gods, why don't we accept that they are just Humans?