Was 11 minutes of stoppage time at West Ham excessive?

The difference in injury time between Sunday's FA Cup quarter-final involving West Ham United and Leeds, and Manchester City's 4-0 win over Liverpool a day earlier was stark.

While Craig Pawson added 11 minutes on at the London Stadium, allowing the hosts to come from 2-0 down in that period to force extra time and a penalty shootout, Michael Oliver did not add on a single second in the tie at Etihad Stadium.

Social media was awash with supporters asking how Oliver could just ignore the laws of the game and choose to play no added time.

After all, there were two goals and six stoppages for substitutions in a game that that was eventually settled 4-2 on penalties in Leeds' favour.

But it is far from unusual in cup games where a match is effectively over.

A couple of years ago Pierluigi Collina, Fifa's head of referees, was talking about added time and when it might be acceptable to cut it short.

The Italian made a good point. He said in cup ties that have no likelihood whatsoever of the outcome changing, blowing up early can be OK.

But Collina also pointed out that should never be the case in a league game, because goal difference can always be crucial.

Zero added time is not seen very often in England, but Uefa referees are told they can end a match bang on time if there is nothing to be gained by playing on. Oliver is, of course, a Fifa and Uefa referee.

Take a look at a couple of Champions League games last month.

Chelsea's tie with Paris St-Germain and Barcelona against Newcastle both had no added time, with the English sides losing by aggregate scores of 8-2 and 8-3 respectively.

Once you look at the stoppages in the West Ham game, you can see the 11 minutes was justifiable.

Plus two substitutes, a couple of VAR checks and other delays.

So while it might have appeared excessive, it was explainable.

"When we are ever in the lead it feels like a crazy amount of time on it," said Leeds boss Daniel Farke afterwards. "When we are chasing a game it feels like it is only three minutes.

"You have to deal with it and it is up to the officials to decide. I'm used to accepting the officials decisions and I try to not complain about it. It is what it is."

A number of West Ham fans had left as the game entered the 90th minute with their side 2-0 behind and heading out of the FA Cup.

But many rushed back in as Mateus Fernandes and Axel Disasi scored in added time to ensure another 30 minutes and, ultimately, penalties would be needed to decide the outcome.

Extra-time certainly had it all with as the Hammers also had two goals ruled out, hit the woodwork, while there was also the introduction of 20-year-old goalkeeper Finlay Herrick for his debut just before the shootout when he replaced the injured Alphonse Areola.

The hosts even averted some controversy after they backed down on a decision, taken by the safety officer before the match, that a penalty shootout would not be taken in front of the end housing 9,000 Leeds fans due to "safety concerns".

As it was, the coin toss went West Ham's way anyway, but Farke added: "You could imagine what I think about such a situation.

"How [do] we play here in the Olympic Stadium - also the stadium where the stand is probably furthest away from the pitch, if then a safety officer signed such a document to have the advantage to have the penalty shootout in front of their supporters? But I won't comment about this."

Cast your mind back to December, and an injury-time equaliser for Brighton against West Ham.

Seagulls forward Charalampos Kostoulas had helped the ball on with an overhead kick, and his boot was very close to the head of Hammers' defender Konstantinos Mavropanos.

West Ham boss Nuno Espirito Santo was furious the VAR did not intervene to disallow the goal and give a free-kick.

As the Brighton goal stood, the Portuguese would have been furious if a goal for his team had been ruled out in similar circumstances.

Axel Disasi's boot was very high and touched the shoulder of Leeds defender Pascal Struijk when he netted West Ham's 96th-minute leveller.

It could have been a foul and arguably was by the letter of the law. But with clear and obvious guidelines, VAR tries to leave anything with some subjectivity on the field - as was the case with both these two goals. If given on-field, the VAR would not have got involved in either to give a goal.

Oddly, in both cases, Mavropanos and Struijk did not really make too much of it. Had the defenders gone down holding their head they may well have got the decision and not conceded a goal.