Croatia eliminated after drama in Toronto: Portugal advanced, VAR marked the end of the match
The Croatian national football team ended its appearance at the 2026 World Cup with a 2:1 defeat to Portugal in Toronto, in a round-of-32 match that, in intensity, rhythm and dramatic outcome, outgrew the usual framework of the result. According to the official report of the Croatian Football Federation, Portugal secured a place in the round of 16 with the victory, while Croatia, after finishing second in Group L, left the tournament in the first knockout round. The duel was played at Toronto Stadium and was decided by Gonçalo Ramos’s goal in the fourth minute of stoppage time. Still, the final image of the match remained tied to the 103rd minute, when Joško Gvardiol shook the net for what seemed to be an equalizer, before the goal was disallowed for offside after a VAR review and data from connected-ball technology. Such an outcome opened a new question about the place of technology in football: does it bring necessary precision, or in the most important moments does it further distance the game from the emotion for which it is followed.
Perišić opened the match after Croatia’s turnaround
The first half belonged to Portugal in terms of possession and territory, but without complete control over the match. In its report, the HNS states that Dominik Livaković stood out with two important interventions, while the Croatian team survived a period in which Portugal more easily found space between the lines. In that part, Croatia mostly waited for an opportunity from an organized block, and coach Zlatko Dalić explained after the match that the plan had been to keep a clean sheet and hold the middle block, although he admitted that in the first 45 minutes the team occasionally dropped deeper than it wanted. The 0:0 score at halftime left room open for a different continuation, and that is exactly what happened. Croatia played faster, more decisively and with more players in zones from which Portugal could be threatened more directly in the second half.
According to the official HNS match record, Croatia took the lead in the 53rd minute. Josip Stanišić crossed the ball from the right side, and Ivan Perišić controlled it and scored for 0:1. That goal was not only important for the score, but it also changed the psychological direction of the match. After taking the lead, Croatia looked more compact in pressing and more secure in moving forward, while Portugal had to take risks and speed up substitutions. The HNS particularly highlighted Perišić’s goal also in the context of his status among Croatian players at World Cups, and Dalić said after the encounter that the forward had deserved such a moment through his many years of contribution to the national team. In football terms, the goal confirmed that Croatia, even against one of the strongest European national teams, had enough structure to build a chance, and not merely to wait for an opponent’s mistake.
Portugal came back through a penalty and decided the match in stoppage time
After conceding the goal, Portugal increased the pressure and accelerated the flow of the ball, and according to the HNS report Rafael Leão struck the crossbar before Portugal’s equalizer. ESPN’s match summary records that Cristiano Ronaldo converted a penalty in the 68th minute for 1:1, by which Portugal restored balance in the score during a phase when Croatia was already showing more and more confidence. The penalty remained one of the controversial moments of the encounter, especially in the Croatian camp, but the official outcome was not changed. Dalić spoke after the match about a poor refereeing impression from the Croatian perspective, but at the same time emphasized that he did not want to reduce the defeat solely to refereeing. Such a tone was important because Croatia, even after conceding, had enough situations to take the lead again.
During the remainder of the second half, Croatia created serious chances. The HNS states that Mateo Kovačić threatened twice with dangerous shots, that Portugal were saved by the goalkeeper and the post, and that Igor Matanović also tried. In the closing stages, Renato Veiga had a dangerous situation on one side, and Mario Pašalić on the other, confirming that the match did not enter a calm phase even after the equalizer. When extra time seemed very likely, Portugal scored in the 90+4th minute: according to The Guardian’s report, Leão crossed into the middle of the penalty area, and Ramos, between Croatian defenders, headed the ball into the net. That moment showed how decisive details are in knockout matches, because Croatia had looked closer to a new goal than the opponent a few minutes earlier, yet still entered the final stretch trailing in the score.
The disallowed goal in the 103rd minute became the central topic
The greatest drama came deep in stoppage time. Gvardiol sent the ball into the net, Croatian players started celebrating, and for a moment the match looked as if it would go to extra time. However, the VAR review changed the course of the evening. ESPN’s text commentary states that the goal was disallowed after it was determined that Mario Pašalić had been offside following a very slight touch of the ball by Igor Matanović. The Straits Times, referring to an explanation from FIFA Media, writes that the connected-ball technology in Adidas’s Trionda registered Matanović’s contact in the build-up to the move, which enabled the refereeing team to establish offside and disallow the goal. It was precisely that element, a touch that is difficult to discern on standard slow-motion footage, that turned the decision into a global debate about the boundary between technical accuracy and the experience of the game.
According to the available reports, it was not disputed that Pašalić, at the moment after Matanović’s touch, could have been in an illegal position; what was disputed, for many viewers, was whether a touch so minimal that the human eye can almost not see it can decide a match of such importance. The Straits Times states that the sensor in the ball produces a data signal when contact occurs, and it was precisely that signal that was crucial for the decision. The IFAB VAR protocol stipulates that video officials assist the main referee in accordance with the Laws of the Game, while the final decision is made by the referee on the field. In practice, however, situations like this show that the referee’s authority increasingly relies on a complex technological system that simultaneously increases precision and reduces space for an intuitive understanding of the moment. That is why the disallowed goal became more than one decision: it became a symbol of the debate that has accompanied modern football since the introduction of VAR.
Dalić: Croatia did not deserve such an ending
After the match, Zlatko Dalić congratulated Portugal and coach Roberto Martínez, but clearly stated that he believed Croatia had deserved a different outcome. According to the HNS’s post from the press conference, Dalić assessed that his team had been the better opponent in the second half, had created many chances and that the defeat came at a moment of intense emotional reversal. He especially emphasized that it is not easy to concede a goal in stoppage time, then score for an equalizer and only after that see VAR disallow the goal. His message was not only a reaction to the refereeing decision, but also a comment on the direction in which football is going. In one of the most quoted sentences after the match, Dalić said that VAR decisions “kill emotions”, and then added that Croatia, despite everything, congratulates Portugal.
Dalić’s analysis also had a tactical dimension. According to the HNS, the coach admitted that Portugal had been better in the first part, but asserted that Croatia should not have allowed the second goal in a situation in which one Portuguese player jumped between several Croatian defenders. In doing so, he opened the question of the defensive reaction to Ramos’s goal, which, regardless of the later VAR drama, remained the decisive moment of the result. Croatia, in his words, had enough good situations to settle the match before entering extended stoppage time. Such an assessment also appears convincing from a neutral perspective, because after Perišić’s goal the Croatian national team indeed had periods in which it looked more dangerous and more direct. In knockout football, however, impressions and the ratio of chances rarely carry weight equal to one defensive mistake or one millimetre offside decision.
Technology introduced for precision is now changing the rhythm of matches
Ahead of the 2026 World Cup, FIFA announced advanced semi-automated offside technology, with the explanation that it would speed up decisions and reduce the risk of play unnecessarily continuing after clear offsides. According to FIFA’s official text on innovations, the new solutions were intended to enable faster notifications to referees on the field and improve the accuracy of decisions. At the same time, the IFAB VAR protocol retains the principle that technology is not a replacement for the referee, but an aid in making decisions in situations that can change a match. The case from Toronto shows how sensitive that boundary is. When technology decides on a touch of the ball that is almost invisible, the result may be legally and technically defensible, but emotionally difficult to accept for a team that has just celebrated a goal.
Such tension is not new, but in Toronto it took on a particularly dramatic form. VAR was introduced into football to reduce the number of major mistakes, especially with goals, penalties, red cards and mistaken identity of players. But with the development of semi-automated offside and sensors in the ball, technology no longer merely corrects obvious mistakes, but enters the area of microscopic differences. For some, this is proof that football finally has a tool for fairer decisions. For others, it is a process in which matches are increasingly decided by data that the public and players cannot independently see in real time. Against Portugal, Croatia felt the heaviest side of such a system: a decision that may be in accordance with technology, but from the perspective of the moment felt like an interruption of the very logic of sporting celebration.
The end of one era and the beginning of a new cycle
The defeat to Portugal also carries a broader national-team context. According to the HNS, Dalić said that this was probably Luka Modrić’s last World Cup, emphasizing that the captain was also one of Croatia’s key players in Toronto. Modrić’s role cannot be reduced only to the minutes spent on the pitch, because for more than a decade he was the tactical and symbolic centre of a team that achieved historic results at the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Alongside him, Dalić also mentioned Ivan Perišić and Mateo Kovačić, highlighting the contribution of the more experienced players, but also the need for younger players to take on larger roles. In Toronto, Croatia had moments in which those two generations could be seen together: experience in organizing play, but also the energy of players who still need to carry the national team through the next cycles.
That is exactly why the 2:1 defeat is not only the end of one tournament. It is also a turning point after a period in which Croatia almost regularly exceeded expectations in major competitions. The HNS report recalls that Croatia finished second in Group L, behind England and ahead of Ghana and Panama, thereby earning a place in the knockout phase in the expanded World Cup format. Elimination in the round of 32 is therefore a sporting step backward compared with the medals from the previous two cycles, but the match against Portugal itself did not leave the impression of a team without ideas or competitiveness. On the contrary, against an opponent of great individual quality, Croatia had the lead, created chances and pressed until the final seconds for extra time. That does not erase the defeat, but it explains why the feeling after the match was different from an ordinary elimination.
Portugal go on, Croatia remain with questions
By advancing, Portugal secured the continuation of the tournament and a duel with Spain in the round of 16, which, according to HNS and international reports, was the predetermined path of the winner of the Toronto encounter. Roberto Martínez’s team survived a difficult test, used the key moments and showed the value of the bench, because Ramos, as a substitute, became the scorer of the decisive goal. Croatia, on the other hand, leave the tournament with a series of questions: how did they lose a match in which for most of the second half they looked more dangerous, why did they once again concede a goal in the closing stages and how much can the national team rely on the generation that brought its greatest successes. Those questions will not have simple answers, especially because beneath the result lies the emotional weight of what may have been Modrić’s last world stage.
In the end, the fact remains that Portugal won 2:1 and went through, while Croatia were eliminated after a match that will long be remembered for the disallowed goal in the 103rd minute. According to the available information, the refereeing decision was based on data from connected-ball technology and a VAR offside review, but that will not stop the debate about what football gains and what it loses when decisive moments are reduced to sensor signals. Croatia lost the result in Toronto, but did not lose the impression of a team that knew how to come back, take risks and force the favoured opponent into a tense finale. Precisely in that difference between the official outcome and the experience of the match lies the reason why this defeat will be analysed far longer than one evening.
Sources:
- Croatian Football Federation – official match report Portugal - Croatia 2:1, scorers, line-ups and description of key moments (link)
- Croatian Football Federation – Zlatko Dalić’s statements after the match and comment on VAR, Modrić, Perišić and the future of the national team (link)
- ESPN – match summary, result, scorers and textual description of the closing stages of the encounter (link)
- FIFA Inside – explanation of the advanced semi-automated offside technology used at the 2026 World Cup (link)
- IFAB – official video assistant referee protocol and principles of VAR use (link)
- The Straits Times – analysis of Croatia’s disallowed goal and the role of connected-ball technology in the 103rd minute (link)
- The Guardian – live text coverage of the match and description of Portugal’s winning goal and the final VAR review (link)