Well can someone tell me where it came from? I don't remember any hold ups at all.

was a bit of a bottom wipe mid second half down near the tv end but it got sucked into Fergie-hughes-time

Time wasting including a lot of time wasting by Stoke City FC !!

we did the time wasting over i n the longside /cricketfiels corner. Dont think they did much wasting of time.

I think it was the amount of time the ball was in near earth orbit.

I think Kevin Friend once again proved himself to be a phucking dick

I think you would normally have had 4-5mins but Tom and one of the ball boys got us 6mins by their combined time wasting antics

6 mins was ridiculous really. Nothing to justify anything more than 3-4 mins.

I fully expected it. We were told to hurry up constantly by the ref so I wasn't at all surprised when 6 mins went up.

We were discussing this, best described as Stokes "Billy Jones moment"

Gave a team some hope, that could have been justified if being ultra strict. Inconsistency again that is all.

I wish more refs would do it tbh. I thought we pushed our time wasting to the limit last night, especially Tom.

It was excessive. I like Toms way of coming up to the dead ball like a left pegger then backing away to take it with his right.
The time wasting in the CF/JH corner doesn't count, the ball is in play.
Haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere but I loved Lowton cleaning out Arnautovic, Ash Barnes style, immediately after Arnautovic had elbowed him, when he put his header wide. Didn't see a trainer come on though?

But Tom didn't go down with cramp like he did at Stoke a couple of years ago!

Pieters injury just front of the longside was stopped for at least 2 minutes. I noticed Tom was warned about time wasting, add the time for the substitutions and the odd hold up and that's where he got in from.

Strange how despite all Stoke's time wasting in the first half he only put up 1 minute on 45 mins. Inconsistency.

Is it a sign of progress that we did not concede a goal in a total of seven minutes of added time?

6 minutes of added time was virtually unheard of until about 2 years ago and I'm really not sure where it will end. That game 2 years ago would have had 3 or 4 minutes and I expected 4 last night.

There were subs, and there was a goal. There was a relatively short injury break. There was a bit of time wasting - by both teams.

Friend was clearly calling out Stoke on their time wasting in the first half. Of course, the purpose of that time wasting isn't to take time out of the game so much as to disrupt the flow of the game and prevent the home team getting momentum. Friend didn't punish it by adding time on at the end of the first half, nor did he really hit them where it hurts by booking them. If he sets a loose precedent then, then I'm at a loss to understand how he found 2 minutes of injury time for time wasting in the final 3rd of the game, when he apparently found none during the first 2/3 of the game.

I don't doubt that he was doing his best, but I do think there's an awful lot of inconsistency about how injury time is calculated and time wasting treated - both between different games and as last night shows, even within the same game.

6 is still excessive, given that Stoke wasted a lot of time, early on. 5 would have been tops, normally.

Everybody was surprised. The only stoppage of note was, as mentioned above, Pieters.

IanMcL wrote:6 is still excessive, given that Stoke wasted a lot of time, early on. 5 would have been tops, normally.

Georgie boyd was going to the corner in the 89th minute and then 6 minutes was added and stoke attacked twice after that.playing to the corner isnt really wise when only 1...0 up.imo