Luis Suarez Charged with Violent Conduct by FA After Attempted Bite vs. Chelsea
The FA reviewed the incident involving Luis Suarez attempting to bite an opponent and decided to charge him with violent conduct.
BBC Sport first reported the news on Twitter:
FA charges Luis Suarez with violent conduct after biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic.— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) April 22, 2013
In a match against Chelsea, Suarez was caught on video trying to bite defender Branislav Ivanovic. This was not seen by officials during the match and the forward was not penalized.
He remained in the contest and ended up scoring the game-tying goal for Liverpool in the 97th minute.
The FA looked into the issue and concluded that it deserved a severe punishment, according to the organization's released statement:
It is alleged that the conduct of Suarez constitutes violent conduct and it is The FA’s contention that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient in these circumstances.
Suarez has until 6pm on Tuesday 23 April to respond to the charge, thereafter an Independent Regulatory Commission will be convened this Wednesday, 24 April.
The Liverpool star currently leads the English Premier League with 23 goals on the season. He is also a very important part of Uruguay's national team and has seven goals in eight World Cup Qualifying matches.
Suarez apologized following Sunday's incident on his Twitter account:
I'm sad for what happened this afternoon, I apologize Ivanovic and all football world for my inexcusable behaviour. I'm so sorry about it!!— Luis Suarez (@luis16suarez) April 21, 2013
Still, it appears that his remorse is not enough to avoid suspension from the league.
This is not the first time in Suarez's career that he has dealt with this issue, either. In 2010, he was accused of biting an opponent while playing for Ajax Amsterdam. That was also missed by the referee, but he received a ban from both his own club and the league.
It is possible that his past incidents will come into play as the FA makes a decision regarding a full punishment.
The talented forward will have a chance to defend his actions prior to April 23, but the outlook does not look good following this charge from the league officials.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?