Why was Croatia’s 103rd-minute equalizer against Portugal ruled out? | OneFootball

Ollie Whitmore, Chief football news reporter

Croatia were seconds away from exiting the World Cup at the round of 32 stage when Josko Gvardiol tapped home to equalize in the 103rd minute against Portugal.

What seemed like a lifeline to keep Luka Modric’s final run on the sport’s biggest stage of all was rescinded in a matter of moments. Mario Pasalic was judged to have been in an offside position before finding the Manchester City defender.

It was 2-1, then 2-2, and then 2-1. All in a few cruel minutes for Croatia. Gonçalo Ramos’ late header after a first knockout goal for Cristiano Ronaldo was enough to seal the comeback victory in the tournament’s most dramatic game yet.

Confusion reigned. Referees aren’t normally sent over to the screen when it comes to an offside decision, particularly with the introduction of semi-automated technology to this year’s competition. What, then, was the issue?

There were a couple of factors at play: one, whether Igor Mantanovic’s glancing header got a touch on the ball before it fell to Pasilic in an offside position, and two: whether Renato Veiga deliberately played the ball after the fact.

BBC Sport’s presenter Mark Chapman instinctively got in touch with former assistant referee Darren Cann, now working as a referees analyst as part of their broadcasting.

He wrote in a text to Chapman: “He was offside when the ball was last played by a teammate, and the ball was deflected by the defender – not deliberately played.

“Snicko 100% proves that he [Mantanovic] touched it.”

Associated with cricket more than football, ‘Snicko’ refers to the World Cup’s new waveform technology, which makes use of a microchip implanted into Addidas’ Trionda match ball to detect precisely whenever the ball is touched by a player.

The technology allows precise data, such as every individual touch of the ball with a boot or hand, to be immediately sent to the Video Assistant Referee in real time.

Adidas say the technology “enables faster in-game officiating decisions and more insight into gameplay than ever before.”

It was displayed on the VAR footage being reviewed in front of the presumable millions of fans tuning in to watch the game, with a spike in the waveform appearing to correspond to the frame in which Mankanovic jumps for the ball still hanging in the air.

Chapman added that he made sure to ask Cann whether he, and this technology, can guarantee that the ball was played by the substitute before it fell to Pasalic. Cann confirmed that this was the case.

With the Croatian attacker seemingly confirmed – as far as we’ve been told – to have played the ball first, it then coming into contact with Veiga was interpreted as a deflection. Goal disallowed.

This isn’t the first time that Snicko has come into use at the 2026 World Cup. Sweden’s fourth goal against Tunisia was controversially awarded after the tech detected a feint touch by Alexander Isak playing the ball onto teammate Mattias Svanberg.

The goalscorer was offside when Yasin Ayari swung in his free kick, but had managed to get himself back onside once the Liverpool striker had touched the ball in a deliberate attempt to play it towards him.

BBC Sport’s pundits debated whether the ball had actually been touched by watching angle after angle of the desperate cross into the penalty area.

The angle behind the goal seemed to show at most the lightest of touches on the ball, a brush of the hair, such are the margins with which games are now often determined.

The decision was a cruel one, certainly, from the perspective on Croatians everywhere. None more so than for Luka Modric, whose final World Cup appearance is at an end. Yet Snicko is said to be so precise that there supposedly is no debate to be had.

For more detailed reports, reaction, and analysis of the World Cup as it happens, head to our website and favourite our page on OneFootball.