Injury Time.

[SoccerHQ]

Does anyone have a clue how refs allocate this, it seems to me they just make it up as they go along? I must admit I let out a chuckle when he gave Norwich 5 minutes today considering how biased he was for them for most of the afternoon.

I then tried to think of how he could've got up to that number and couldn't think of a logical reason.

There were no goals scored in the second half, 6 subs were made (but the Bassong and Benteke injuries were in the first half when only two minutes were added) and Norwich actually made a double sub so there's no way you can just add a minute on when two players come on at pretty much the same time.

So really there was 1 m 30 seconds of injury time which would get rounded up to two when you take into account us slowing the play down at various points, no way should there have been another three minutes on top of that.

I then looked back to the Newcastle game, I think we got 3 minutes for that when there were two goals scored in that half (including a length goal celebration by Gouffran) and 4 subs so just seems bizarre to me and very biased to the home team.

[eamonn]

Luna was down injured, Weimann briefly too. Possibly others, can't remember now. Coupled with the subs I was expecting about four. He probably gave them an extra minute so they wouldn't whine so much.

[Chipsticks]

I thought 5 added minutes was quite fair today. Both sides used all 3 subs and there were a few injuries to account for. It was excruciating at the time but I don't think it was unnecessary.

[leylandalbion]

Seemed about right....and not withstanding the penalty decision I thought we had the all the 50/50 calls.  Plus no bookings!

[Tom_Mc9?]

Also seemed right to me, especially as we were trying every time-wasting tactic in the book.

[Mortimer's Bear]

Apart from the penalty decision I didn't think the ref favoured Norwich at all, if anything it probably went the other way.

[garyshawsknee]

Isn't it 30 seconds per sub ? So thats around 3 minutes if all subs have been used. Did seem about right,but didnt stop me moaning when i saw the amount.

[SoccerHQ]

Two subs were used in the first half and Norwich also did a double sub in the second half so I can't understand how you can add a minute on when one sub comes on seconds after the other.

[villan from luton]

I said to the lad it would be five minutes at least, think it was fair to be honest.  We were time wasting and there were injuries such as Luna's.

[Exeter 77]

I think the referee was adding time Brad Guzan delaying goal kicks in the last ten minutes or so.

[Dave Clark Five]

At one stage, a Norwich player walked off with the ball. Must have forgotten they were losing. Luna was down for a while. We guessed 5 minutes before the board went up. With 30 seconds per sub as well, I think it was perfectly justified.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

I listened to 5Live commentary who said it seemed very fair.

Rose tinted spectacles perhaps?

[Clampy]

I thought 4 minutes at the most personally.

[exigo]

About time football adopted the rugby union approach. Just stop the clock every time there's a substitution, injury or bit of time-wasting. That way everybody knows how long is left and just gets on with it.

[PGW]

It was fair - we slowed game down whenever we had the opportunity to - i actually thought it may have been as much as six.