1 / 3 today
⚖ VAR Verdict · Case #144

Colombia vs Portugal

FIFA World Cup · 2025/2026 · 2026-06-27 · 0-0

Correct high confidence
Offside
🗳️ Community verdict — vote now 5 votes needed for verdict

OURVAR judged the referee's decision: Correct. You're voting on whether OURVAR's analysis is right — not on the referee.

Do you agree with OURVAR's verdict?

Every vote helps sharpen OURVAR's accuracy — and we're grateful for it. The AI isn't infallible, and your verdict is exactly what improves it, case by case. You're helping build the VAR we all deserve. 🙏

Incident
Offside
Law cited
Law 11 — Offside
Recommended action
Colombia #23 scored a stoppage-time goal
Referee
Affected team
On-field decision
Colombia #23 scored a stoppage-time goal; awarded on the field, then overturned by VAR for offside after a semi-automated offside (SAOT) check
🎬 Spot another clip we missed? Suggest it — we review every submission.
Suggest a clip →

In the fifth minute of stoppage time at 0-0, Colombia's #23 scored what looked like a winner against Portugal. The goal was awarded, then overturned by VAR after semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) found #23 offside by the narrowest of margins — a "toenail." The decision is correct, however brutal. Offside is binary: there is no tolerance, no benefit of the doubt, and no requirement for "clear daylight" — that was only ever a naked-eye guideline for assistant referees, never a law. A toenail beyond the line is offside, full stop, and because it's a foot (a body part that can legally play the ball) it counts toward the line. Crucially, offside is a FACTUAL decision, like goal-line technology — it is NOT gated by the "clear and obvious error" bar that protects subjective calls, so "it's only a toenail, that's not clear and obvious" does not apply. SAOT is the objective arbiter; if it says offside, the goal must be disallowed regardless of margin. CORRECT DECISION, HIGH confidence. The genuine debate here isn't refereeing — it's whether you trust SAOT's precision at toenail scale. That's a technology-trust question, not an officiating error.

🔒 Premium

Read the full OURVAR breakdown

Sign up to see every key factor, the IFAB law clauses cited, and the frame-by-frame reasoning that led to this verdict.

Ask OURVAR

🔒 PREMIUM

Have a question about this verdict?

Push back on the verdict. Ask the AI 'why?', 'what about the elbow angle?', 'what's the precedent?' — and get IFAB-grounded answers from the same model that called the case. Pro 25/month · WC 50 · GB 150.

Discussion

You're posting as a guest — one comment per discussion. Sign in to post more and comment under your name: Sign up free →