Was 11 minutes of stoppage time at West Ham excessive?

Was 11 minutes of stoppage time at West Ham excessive?To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.This video can not be playedMedia caption, FA Cup highlights: West Ham 2-2 (2-4 Pens) Leeds UnitedByDale JohnsonFootball issues correspondentPublished8 minutes ago4 CommentsThe 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...