The Luis Suárez “biting” incident has been explained away by a Uruguayan TV station as a conspiracy by the English – just like the 1966 World Cup final.

A report on the Tenfield station’s website said Suárez’s face made contact with Giorgio Chiellini’s shoulder but only became an issue about biting when British reporters repeatedly asked questions in the post-match press conference. The report adds that Geoff Hurst’s second goal in the 1966 final did not cross the line.

It says: “In the TV replay, as viewed in the press area, it appears that Luisito’s face comes in contact with Chiellini without it being clear whether he bites him as was claimed by those – especially the English – who were keen to play down Uruguay’s victory.

“In our view the TV picture is not clear as to whether or not Suárez bites the shoulder of the Italian defender. Note how Suárez stumbles after jumping for the ball and how his face hits the shoulder of the Italian player.

“British reporters, in the press conference, asked Óscar Tabárez three times about the incident, saying that: ‘Suárez bit Chiellini.’ Their intention was Fifa should expel Luisito. It would be good if these Englishmen remember how they won the World Cup in 1966 with a ball which was not a goal.”

Uruguayan fans give their opinions on the incident. Guardian

Other press reaction in Uruguay included coverage of the response on social media and overseas, and the sense that all may not have been as it seemed – El Observador pointing to a lack of definitive photo evidence.

“There was no single picture to prove there was a bite. Two images were circulating: one, of Chiellini with his shirt up for the referee, appeared to show he had been visited by a vampire. In the other there was nothing. Was it Photoshop?

“But the episode was enough for Luisito to again be the talk of the British media, and relegated the result between Uruguay and Italy to second place. All British media detailed it on their websites in great detail.”

Últimas Noticias saw both sides, reporting: “The photos spread over social networks. But nobody talks about how Suárez was injured in the jaw and the eye. Suárez said ‘these things happen on the pitch’ and played down his swollen face.”

El País also covered the UK reaction: “The assumption that Suárez bit [Chellini] flew around the world, even before the game ended. The main English newspapers were tough with the Liverpool player. It is worth remembering that most of the English press harassed the Uruguayan after the bite that he gave Branislav Ivanovic.”

But headlines from elsewhere around the world suggested it was not just an English campaign. Spain’s Marca asked: “Has Suárez finally bitten off more than he can chew?”; Italy’s Gazzetta dello Sport wrote: “The return of Dracula. Suárez is worse than Tyson”; Tuttosport called it “a moment of shameful madness”; and La Stampa said Italy had come unstuck after losing the “battle with the vampires … slamming up against the teeth of Suárez and the red card waved by a referee nicknamed Dracula”.

Germany’s Bild also ran with that theme, describing a “crazy biting attack” from “football’s vampire”; Switzerland’s Blick ran with “Incredible: Cannibal Suárez bites Chiellini”; Voetbalkrant in the Netherlands said: “Cannibal Suárez strikes again”; while in Belgium Le Soir reported: “They jostled, then suddenly Suárez fell on his opponent’s shoulder like an eagle on his prey. And bit him.” Het Laatste Nieuws called it “the tooth of God”.

In the US, the New York Times told readers: “The most ruthless soccer players often use their hands or elbows or knees to rough up opposing players. The most reckless – or dirtiest – might even use their cleats. Then there is Luis Suárez. The Uruguayan striker, who has emerged as one of the best players in the world over the past year, is a biter. And, it seems, a serial one.”

Public opinion in Uruguay, meanwhile, was divided. “We needed to win, so if you have to hit you hit, if you have to bite you bite,” said Barbara Giordano, a 26-year-old law student in Montevideo.

Some, though, were furious. “This kid can’t control his biting and attacking issues,” said Luis Lara, a 52-year-old shopkeeper. “That makes all of us Uruguayans look bad.”