Premier League: Everton's Oumar Niasse to be banned for two matches over dive against Crystal Palace

Everton’s Oumar Niasse will serve a two-match ban after his appeal against a diving charge was rejected, becoming the first Premier League player to be hit with a retrospective suspension. The Senegalese was charged on Tuesday by the Football Association after he won a controversial penalty in Saturday’s 2-2 draw at Crystal Palace. [caption id=“attachment_4223955” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Everton’s Oumar Niasse (left) in action against Crystal Palace. AP[/caption] “Everton’s Oumar Niasse will serve a two-match suspension with immediate effect after his denial of an FA charge of ‘Successful Deception of a Match Official’ was rejected,” said a statement from the FA on Wednesday. “It was alleged he committed an act of simulation which led to a penalty being awarded in the fifth minute of the game against Crystal Palace on 18 November 2017. “He denied the charge. However, it was found proven following an Independent regulatory commission hearing today (Wednesday).” The ban means Niasse, Everton’s top scorer, will miss the league games at Southampton on Sunday and at home against West Ham three days later. Referee Anthony Taylor awarded the penalty in Saturday’s game at Selhurst Park when Niasse went down in the Palace box after brushing past Eagles defender Scott Dann, who reacted angrily to the decision. Leighton Baines converted the spot-kick to cancel out James McArthur’s opener for the hosts, and Niasse later netted a second equaliser. Dann said after the game that Niasse had “conned the referee”. The FA statement added: “Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player. “Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of ‘Successful Deception of a Match Official’. “Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge.”