Why a penalty was not awarded to Canada in the controversial action against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The controversial situation from the match between Canada and Bosnia and Herzegovina at the 2026 World Cup remains one of the most discussed from the start of Group B. Canada appealed for a penalty after contact between forward Tani Oluwaseyi and goalkeeper Nikola Vasilj, but the referee did not point to the spot, and the Bosnia and Herzegovina goalkeeper was not sent off. According to the official Canada Soccer match report, the match played on June 12, 2026, at BMO Field in Toronto ended 1:1, with goals scored by Jovo Lukić in the 21st minute and Cyle Larin in the 78th minute. FIFA stated in its match report that Canada reached its first point in the history of its appearances at men's World Cups with that goal, while Bosnia and Herzegovina kept a point in a match in which much of the discussion after the final whistle turned to the refereeing interpretation of one action.
The key to understanding the decision is not only whether there was contact, but the order of events that was being reviewed. According to the rules of IFAB, the governing body responsible for the Laws of the Game, a player who is in an offside position does not commit an offence by position alone, but does so when he becomes actively involved in play, plays the ball, challenges an opponent for the ball, or clearly affects the opponent's ability to play through his movement. If such an offside offence occurred before contact with the goalkeeper or a defender, the restart of play must be determined according to the first punishable event, namely an indirect free kick for the defending team, not a penalty kick for the attacking team. That sequence, according to the available analysis of the controversial situation, was precisely the reason why the on-field decision was not changed after the VAR check.
A match that gained an additional refereeing story
The match in Toronto also had a strong sporting and symbolic context because Canada, as one of the tournament hosts, opened its campaign in front of its home crowd. According to official Canada Soccer data, the match began at 3 p.m. local time, and Canada equalised in the second half only two minutes after Cyle Larin came on for Tani Oluwaseyi. Canada Soccer named Ismaël Koné the player of the match, reflecting the impression that the Canadian midfield, especially in the second half, took over a larger share of possession and initiative. Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to the official schedule of the Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina, recorded the match as a 1:1 draw in its first group match at the 2026 World Cup.
11v11 data states that the match was refereed by Argentine Facundo Tello and that there were 43,002 spectators in the stadium. The same source also records that this was the first meeting between Canada and Bosnia and Herzegovina at senior A level, which further increased the importance of the result for both national teams. For Canada, the point carried historic weight because the team had, according to the same statistical overview, lost all six matches it had previously played at men's World Cups. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, the draw meant the continuation of a results-wise stable run in 2026, at least according to the association's official records, which by June 13 listed two wins and three draws that year.
In such an atmosphere, every decision in the penalty area carries extra weight. The contact between Vasilj and Oluwaseyi was therefore not viewed in isolation, but as part of an action in which it first had to be established where the attacker was at the moment the ball was played and whether he then became actively involved in play. The modern VAR protocol therefore separates factual elements, such as offside position or the location of an offence, from subjective assessments, such as the intensity of contact. According to IFAB's VAR protocol, VAR automatically checks potential decisions on goals, penalty kicks, direct red cards and mistaken identity, but the on-field decision is changed only when the footage shows a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident.
Why offside is checked first
In the controversial action, the decisive question was whether Oluwaseyi, before colliding with Vasilj, had already gained an active advantage from an offside position. According to IFAB's Law 11, if an attacker was in an offside position at the moment of a teammate's pass and then plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball, the offside offence occurs before the later contact. IFAB also cites in its official examples a scenario in which an attacker in an offside position becomes involved in play before a defender's offence; in that case, play is restarted because of the offside, not because of the later offence, although the referee may still consider a disciplinary sanction if the contact was careless, reckless or dangerous. This is a distinction that often causes misunderstandings among viewers because the television image first creates the impression of a physical offence, while the rules require a chronological analysis of the entire action.
Semi-automated offside technology at the 2026 World Cup additionally accelerated precisely that part of the review. Before the tournament, FIFA announced that advanced semi-automated offside technology at this edition of the World Cup would be used so that clear cases could be sent directly to the match officials on the field, with the aim of faster decision-making and reducing the risk that players unnecessarily continue an action after an offside has already occurred. FIFA also stated that the system uses digital avatars of players and 3D visualisations, which helps with the television explanation of decisions. But that technology does not make an assessment of the intensity of an offence; it helps with the factual question of a player's position and the moment of the pass.
That is why the logic of the review in this action was as follows: first, it is established whether the Canadian attacker was in an offside position and whether he actively participated from that position, and only then is the contact with the goalkeeper assessed. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, a penalty kick cannot take precedence because the attacking team had previously committed an offence. This does not mean that the contact does not exist, nor does it mean that the goalkeeper's action was automatically permitted. It only means that the restart of play, according to the Laws of the Game, must be tied to the first offence in the sequence if that offence had already stopped the legality of the attacking action.
Contact with Vasilj and the question of disciplinary punishment
The discussion therefore remains open in the second part: whether Vasilj's continuation of movement after he first reached the ball was of such intensity that it would require a separate disciplinary sanction. According to IFAB's Law 12, offences involving contact are assessed according to whether the challenge was careless, reckless or made with excessive force. Careless contact does not necessarily require a card, a reckless challenge is punished with a caution, and excessive force or endangering the safety of an opponent can lead to a sending-off. In situations in which an offside offence preceded the contact, the referee still has the right to punish a serious or reckless action, but the mere fact that there was a collision does not automatically mean a red card.
For the assessment of a possible sending-off, the question of so-called DOGSO, or denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, is also important. If the attacker had already become punishably involved from an offside position, then it is difficult to speak of a legal obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the sense of a sanction for preventing a goal. This does not exclude the possibility of a red card for serious foul play or violent conduct, but such a decision requires a higher threshold: the footage would have to show that the player acted with excessive force or seriously endangered the safety of an opponent. According to IFAB's VAR protocol, VAR can intervene in the case of a possible direct red card, but it is not used to re-referee every situation or to recommend an ordinary yellow card if it is not one of the prescribed categories for review.
The available official match reports do not show that Vasilj received a card in that action. Canada Soccer lists in the match chronology yellow cards for Alistair Johnston and Luc de Fougerolles for Canada and for Ermedin Demirović, Jovo Lukić and Nikola Katić for Bosnia and Herzegovina. This points to the conclusion that the refereeing team and VAR, after the review, judged that there was no basis for a penalty kick because of the previous offside, but also that the threshold for a direct sending-off of the goalkeeper had not been met. Such a decision does not have to satisfy every interpretation, especially when the action is viewed in slow motion and from multiple angles, but it is consistent with the way the VAR protocol separates factual and judgment-based elements.
Why footage often creates different impressions
One of the reasons why situations like this provoke so much debate is the way viewers most often see the controversial moment. In a television broadcast, the emphasis often falls on the most visible part of the action, namely the collision between the players, while for the rules it is equally important what happened several moments earlier. If the shot first shows the attacker falling, the impression may be that the discussion is exclusively about a penalty kick. But the refereeing team must reconstruct the entire attacking sequence: the moment of the pass, the attacker's position, his movement toward the ball, his involvement in the duel and only then the contact with the goalkeeper.
The VAR protocol also requires that, for subjective assessments of contact intensity, footage at normal speed be used as an important element because slow-motion footage can amplify the impression of the seriousness of a challenge. Slow-motion footage is useful for establishing factual elements, for example the point of contact or the position of players, but it should not by itself replace the assessment of the dynamics of the action. That is why two viewers can see the same footage and arrive at different conclusions: one will point out that the goalkeeper reached the ball first, another will emphasise the continuation of movement and the contact with the attacker, while the refereeing team must place the entire situation into the legal order of events.
In this specific case, if the offside was confirmed before the contact, the main reason for not awarding a penalty was not the conclusion that every part of Vasilj's intervention was ideal or unproblematic. The reason was that the attacking action, according to the rules, was no longer legal at the moment when the player from an offside position actively participated. After that, only the disciplinary question remains: whether the later contact was dangerous enough for a card regardless of the restart of play. According to the available information, the officials did not judge that the threshold for a direct sending-off had been reached, and VAR, according to the protocol, does not intervene to recommend only a caution.
The wider significance of the decision for Group B
The 1:1 result kept both national teams in contention to continue the competition, but also opened a discussion about how technology affects the experience of football. According to Canada Soccer's official schedule, after the match with Bosnia and Herzegovina Canada had fixtures against Qatar on June 18 and Switzerland on June 24, both in Vancouver. The Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina listed in its schedule a match against Switzerland on June 18 and against Qatar on June 24. In a group in which every point can be decisive, a decision from one action logically carries extra weight, especially for a team that spent much of the second half seeking a comeback in front of its fans.
Still, from the perspective of the rules, this situation shows why VAR was not designed as a system that seeks the harshest punishment after every physical collision. Its task, according to IFAB, is to correct clear and obvious errors in a limited number of categories, including a penalty kick or a direct red card. In practice, this means the outcome can look paradoxical: an attacker can end up on the grass after contact, while the decision can still be an indirect free kick for the opponent if an offside offence was committed earlier. Such decisions often do not calm debates, but they emphasise why the order of events in football law is just as important as the intensity of the contact itself.
The controversial action involving Vasilj and Oluwaseyi therefore remains an example of a situation in which public discussion takes place on two levels. The first is technical and concerns offside: if the attacker was active from an illegal position, a penalty kick could not be awarded. The second is disciplinary and concerns the goalkeeper's movement after his intervention on the ball: if it had been judged reckless or excessively forceful, a card could have been possible regardless of the offside, but VAR intervention requires the threshold of a direct red card. According to the available official match reports and the rules governing such situations, the decision not to award a penalty kick stems from the chronology of the action, while the discussion about the disciplinary interpretation will remain a space for differing refereeing and fan interpretations.
Sources:
- FIFA – official match report for Canada – Bosnia and Herzegovina at the 2026 World Cup. (link)
- Canada Soccer – official match report, result, scorers, substitutions and match chronology for Canada – Bosnia and Herzegovina. (link)
- Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina – official overview of the A national team results for 2026 and match schedule. (link)
- IFAB – Law 11 on offside and official examples of the order of offside and a later offence. (link)
- IFAB – Law 12 on fouls, disciplinary sanctions, reckless challenges, excessive force and DOGSO situations. (link)
- IFAB – VAR protocol, categories of decisions VAR may check and the threshold of a clear and obvious error. (link)
- FIFA Innovation – explanation of advanced semi-automated offside technology at the 2026 World Cup. (link)
- 11v11 – statistical data on the match, referee, attendance and historical context of the encounter. (link)