The governing body for refereeing in English football, known as Pro Ref, has publicly recognized that a mistake was made when it awarded Manchester City a winning goal in their 1-0 triumph over Manchester United at Old Trafford. In a statement issued just a few hours after the match, Pro Ref disclosed that it had reached out to Manchester United to admit an "error of judgment" and conceded that the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) should have suggested an on‑field review of the decision that led to Erling Haaland's decisive strike being allowed.
Initially, Haaland's goal was ruled out for offside by the on‑field officials. After a VAR review, the decision was overturned and the goal was confirmed. The VAR panel determined that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland onside.
However, the review also identified that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned offside when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland. Although Fernandez never made contact with the ball, his movement appeared to impede United defender Lisandro Martinez, which, under the Laws of the Game, should have been considered interference and therefore a valid reason to keep the goal disallowed.
A Pro Ref spokesperson elaborated on the incident, stating: "Following the 60th‑minute incident in Sunday's Premier League clash at Old Trafford, we can now clarify the circumstances surrounding Erling Haaland's awarded goal. The original on‑field call was that Haaland was offside; VAR reviewed the footage and concluded he was onside.
In the same attacking move, it was determined that Enzo Fernandez did not touch the ball, making any offside offence subjective. Nevertheless, the VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on‑field review. We have contacted Manchester United this evening to acknowledge what we deem an error of judgement, and a formal review of the incident will be undertaken." Pro Ref, formerly known as the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) before a summer rebrand, is overseen by former Premier League referee Howard Webb. The organization administers officiating across the four top men’s divisions, the National League, the Women's Super League and the U21 Premier League 2.
In a post on the social platform X, the Premier League Match Centre attempted to justify the decision, noting: "VAR checked the referee's call of no goal for offside and determined that Haaland was onside, recommending that the goal be awarded. VAR also concluded that while Fernandez was in an offside position, he did not play the ball." That emphasis on Fernandez not touching the ball aligned with the replay footage shown during the VAR review, which seemed focused on whether the City midfielder had made contact.
Yet the offside rule is explicit: a player can be penalised for being offside even without touching the ball if he interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball, for example by obstructing vision, movement or challenging for the ball. In this case, Fernandez's presence in the box arguably obstructed Martinez’s line of sight and his attempt to clear the ball, satisfying the interference criterion. Former Manchester United defender Gary Neville, providing co‑commentary at the time of the goal, argued that the VAR officials were "wrong" to allow Haaland’s effort.
Neville later expressed on his podcast that he expected an apology from Pro Ref, stating: "We will see an apology from Pro Ref. There is no doubt that Enzo is attempting to play the ball and putting Lisandro Martinez off. It's a really strange one. They'll recognise they got that wrong." Neville continued, "I think they are ignoring the rule.
They are digging themselves a bigger hole with the Match Centre statement. I'm really surprised they put that out.
They will have to retract that." Lisandro Martinez, the United defender involved in the play, echoed similar frustration in his post‑match interview, insisting the goal should not have stood. He told Sky Sports: "Every season the officials come to our club and spend an hour explaining the rules and they look so confident with that. Then after, five or six people doing this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable. We have to go home with this injustice." Former Manchester City defender Micah Richards dismissed the Match Centre’s explanation as "nonsense".
When asked whether Fernandez was clearly attempting to play the ball, Richards replied: "One hundred per cent he is. I think it's been a bad day for referees and VAR.
They got the Phil Foden decision wrong, and they got this decision wrong. How can you not say Enzo Fernandez is challenging for the ball – of course he is! I've been in that position as a defender where any slight movement can make the difference for going for the ball or not, so of course it affects him. I just think they've got it so wrong." Roy Keane, another former United player, summed up the prevailing sentiment: "Fernandez is interfering with play.
Basically, United have been punished for holding a good line. When you are in that position, you are impacting the game. You're in the middle of the box, you're going for the ball. Their line is good.
Fernandez is offside, and he goes to play the ball, so United are getting punished for good defending." The controversy highlights the ongoing challenges faced by VAR technology and its interpreters. While VAR aims to reduce clear errors, the subjective nature of offside judgments—particularly regarding interference—means that decisions can still be contested.
Critics argue that the system currently lacks consistent guidelines for when a player’s off‑ball movement should be deemed to affect an opponent, leading to divergent opinions among experts, former players, and fans. In response to the backlash, Pro Ref has pledged to review the incident thoroughly. The organization’s statement suggests that a formal inquiry will examine whether the VAR protocol was correctly applied and whether the recommendation for an on‑field review should have been issued. This could potentially result in updated guidance for future offside reviews, aiming to clarify the criteria for interference and ensure greater consistency.
The incident also reignited debate about the broader role of VAR in the Premier League. Some pundits advocate for a stricter, more transparent approach, while others call for a reduction in the number of interventions to preserve the flow of the game. As the Premier League continues to refine its use of technology, incidents like this serve as case studies for how the governing bodies might balance accuracy with the spirit of the sport.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of Pro Ref’s review, the episode underscores the fine line between a legitimate goal and a technical infringement, and how that line can be blurred by the complexities of modern officiating. For Manchester United supporters, the feeling remains that an unjust decision cost them valuable points, while Manchester City fans celebrate a hard‑won victory that, according to the official record, stood within the laws of the game. The discussion also reflects a broader cultural conversation about accountability in football officiating.
When errors occur, fans and former players alike demand transparency and, where appropriate, apologies. Whether Pro Ref will issue a formal apology remains to be seen, but the organization’s acknowledgement of an "error of judgement" is a step toward greater openness. In the meantime, the match result stands: Manchester City 1, Manchester United 0, with Haaland’s goal remaining on the scoresheet pending any further official amendment.
The incident will likely be referenced in future debates about VAR's role and the interpretation of the offside law, serving as a reminder that even with advanced technology, human judgment remains at the heart of football's decision‑making process.