When Joško Gvardiol’s 103rd minute equalizer hit the net in Toronto, Croatia believed it had escaped. Portugal had moved ahead through Gonçalo Ramos in the 94th minute, and Gvardiol appeared to have forced extra time with almost the final attack. Cristiano Ronaldo sat on the bench looking beaten. Croatia’s players began to celebrate. Then the review started.
The ball had passed close to Igor Matanović before reaching Gvardiol. It did not clearly change direction, but the sensor inside it registered contact. VAR treated that touch as a new phase of play and ruled Gvardiol offside. The goal disappeared. Portugal advanced with a 2 to 1 win, while angry Croatia supporters threw debris onto the pitch.
FIFA later defended the technology. Croatia’s concern, however, now goes beyond the sensor. Its federation wants the audio that explains what the officials saw, discussed, and decided.
Croatia Has Waited Since July 3 for an Answer
The match was played on July 2. Croatia’s federation president, Marijan Kustić, sent a formal letter to FIFA the next day seeking access to the communication between the referee and the VAR team.
Speaking to Croatian broadcaster RTL on July 14, technical director Stipe Pletikosa confirmed that the request remained unanswered. “The day after the incident, President Kustić sent a strongly worded letter to FIFA requesting access to the VAR communication,” Pletikosa said. “To this day, we have not received a response.”
Croatia has called the intervention an abuse of technology, but it has not argued that every use of VAR is wrong. The federation supports video review. Its complaint centres on the threshold for intervention and the lack of access to the conversation that produced the decision.
That is a fair line of inquiry. Referees deserve protection from baseless complaints, and FIFA must support them when the rulebook backs their decisions. Yet support does not require secrecy. In a moment that ended a country’s tournament, FIFA should be able to show how its officials applied the law.
The Sensor Answered Only One Part of the Question
FIFA has explained that connected ball technology can detect extremely slight contact. In this case, the sensor recorded a touch as the cross travelled past Matanović. Once officials accepted that reading, the offside rule doomed Croatia.
Knowing what the chip detected is not the same as knowing why the officials scrubbed the goal.
Croatia wants to hear whether the VAR team first identified the possible touch through video or sensor data. It also wants clarity on how officials matched the signal to the exact moment on the replay. Those details matter because the ball did not visibly deflect and the contact may have come from Matanović’s hair.
The scene inside Toronto Stadium made the confusion worse. Players waited while officials checked an equalizer scored deep into added time. No referee announcement explained the process to the crowd. Supporters watched celebration turn into elimination, followed by a technical graphic that supplied the verdict but not the reasoning behind it.
VAR was supposed to bring clear answers to the World Cup. Instead, microscopic margins have made the gray areas harder for supporters to accept.
Egypt and England Raised Their Own VAR Complaints
Croatia’s protest did not emerge in isolation.
Egypt filed a formal complaint after its 3 to 2 loss against Argentina on July 7. VAR removed an Egyptian goal because of a foul earlier in the attacking move, while another penalty appeal received no review. Coach Hossam Hassan said, “What’s happening isn’t fair.” The Egyptian Football Association added that it “cannot remain silent” over decisions it believed shaped the result.
England manager Thomas Tuchel was furious after his team beat Mexico 3 to 2. VAR upgraded Jarell Quansah’s foul to a red card and later awarded Mexico a penalty after the referee had not initially called a foul. Tuchel questioned whether the penalty involved a clear and obvious error, the standard that originally defined VAR intervention.
Those cases are different from Croatia’s disallowed goal. They should not be bundled together as proof of a fixed tournament or a broken system. Still, each dispute points to the same problem. FIFA has expanded the situations VAR can review, and the number of interventions quickly passed the totals recorded at the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
More reviews demand clearer explanations. FIFA cannot widen VAR’s reach while keeping supporters at the same distance from its decisions.
Releasing the Audio Would Help Referees Too
Football is a game of interpretation. Camera angles, slow motion, sensor readings, and offside graphics can support a ruling, but people still decide which evidence matters and how the law applies.
FIFA does not need to publish every word spoken during every match. It could release audio after major reviews, especially when a national federation submits a formal request. Supporters could then hear whether officials identified the correct incident, followed the expected process, and reached a conclusion that matched FIFA’s later explanation.
Such transparency would also protect referees. Silence leaves room for claims of bias, pressure, and selective enforcement. Audio can replace speculation with evidence, even when supporters continue to dislike the outcome.
Croatia is not asking FIFA to restore the goal or replay the match. Portugal’s victory will remain in the record. The federation is asking to hear how officials made one of the tournament’s most important decisions.
FIFA can continue pointing to the sensor. Until it releases the human conversation behind the call, the technology will answer only half the question.
READ MORE: Argentina Survives Egypt As VAR Furor Turns Escape Into World Cup Reckoning
FAQs
Q.1 Why was Croatia’s late goal against Portugal disallowed?
The match ball’s sensor detected contact from Igor Matanović. VAR then ruled the attacking move offside and cancelled the goal.
Q2. Did Croatia request the VAR audio from FIFA?
Yes. Federation president Marijan Kustić sent FIFA a formal request on July 3 for the referee and VAR communication.
Q3. Has FIFA answered Croatia’s request?
Stipe Pletikosa said on July 14 that Croatia had not received a response from FIFA.
Q4. What is connected ball technology?
It uses sensors inside the match ball to detect movement and slight contact. The system sends that information to the VAR officials.
Q5. Why does Croatia want the officials’ audio?
Croatia wants to understand how the officials interpreted the sensor data and reached the decision that disallowed the goal.
