Luis Suarez bite: 'Luis Suarez completed the 90 minutes' - Liverpool look the other way as official match report fails to mention 'bite' incident
Club website apparently didn't notice game's biggest moment
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.It might have been the game's major talking point and the most controversial incident of this World Cup, but apparently nobody at Liverpool Football Club noticed the Luis Suarez 'bite'.
The club's official match report for the Italy v Uruguay game makes absolutely no mention of the clash between Suarez and Giorgio Chiellini in the 80th minute, despite the fact that it appeared the Uruguayan striker bit his Italian opponent.
Showing Arsene Wenger-esque levels of selective blindness, the club's report of the game instead decided to focus on the fact that Suarez lasted the full 90 minutes - although not mentioning that it was more through the generosity of the referee than anything else.
The liverpoolfc.com match report begins: "Luis Suarez completed the 90 minutes as Uruguay booked their place in the last 16 of the World Cup with a hard-fought 1-0 victory over 10-man Italy."
However despite their striker appearing to bite someone in a game, for the third time in his career, the report glossed over that moment instead focusing on key aspects of the match like the fact that "Sebastian Coates was an unused substitute in Natal."
Although perhaps all this should come as no surprise given the club's recent history of covering for their star striker's indiscrestions.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments