The decisive strike by Erling Haaland in the recent Manchester derby was shrouded in controversy, leaving fans and pundits alike with a series of unanswered questions. Initially, the goal was ruled out for off‑side on the field, only to be reinstated after a VAR review. The video assistant referee team concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, yet they also noted that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland.
To unpack what happened, it helps to follow the sequence of events step by step. First, the on‑field officials flagged Haaland for off‑side, a decision that was later overturned when the VAR officials reviewed the play. Their assessment focused on the positioning of Dorgu, who was deemed to have played the ball to Haaland from an on‑side location. However, the same review also highlighted that Fernandez, who was six yards from the goal line, was in an off‑side position when he tried to make contact with the ball.
According to the off‑side law, a player can be penalised even if he does not touch the ball, provided he interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball or gains an advantage from his position. Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night admitting that a mistake had been made in awarding the goal. They described the incident as an "error of judgement" and offered a partial explanation: the VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of Fernandez’s off‑side position on the play.
In other words, the officials focused on whether Fernandez actually touched the ball, rather than assessing whether his presence in an off‑side spot disrupted the goalkeeper’s actions or otherwise affected the outcome. The core of the controversy lies in the interpretation of "impact on play".
The VAR team appeared to become fixated on a technical detail—whether Fernandez made contact with the ball—while overlooking the broader principle that an off‑side player can still influence the game without touching the ball. This nuance is embedded in the Laws of the Game: a player in an off‑side position is penalised if he interferes with an opponent, obstructs the goalkeeper’s line of sight, or otherwise affects the opponent’s ability to play the ball. In this case, United goalkeeper David de Gea reacted to Fernandez’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just as Haaland struck the ball.
Even if Fernandez did not actually make contact, his presence clearly altered de Gea’s positioning and concentration. Pro Ref clarified that the initial off‑side call against Haaland was correct—he was on‑side—but the subsequent review shifted focus to Fernandez. The VAR correctly identified Fernandez as off‑side, yet they seemed to base their final decision on the erroneous premise that he had not touched the ball, rather than on the fact that his off‑side position had already interfered with the goalkeeper.
This misapplication of the rule meant that the goal was allowed to stand, despite the off‑side infringement. A further point of contention is the procedural aspect of the review.
According to the guidelines, when a potential off‑side offence is identified, the VAR should advise the on‑field referee to conduct an on‑field review (OFR) if there is any doubt about whether the off‑side player impacted play. In this instance, the VAR did not request an OFR, opting instead to make a judgment based solely on the visual evidence of ball contact. Had they followed protocol, referee Michael Oliver would have been asked to consider whether Fernandez’s off‑side positioning had disrupted de Gea’s ability to make a save, a decision that would likely have resulted in the goal being disallowed.
The incident also raises questions about the consistency and transparency of VAR decisions. While the Premier League has introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a precise kick‑point graphic for each review, the technology still relies on human interpretation of the visual data. The shift from manual crosshair placement to automated lines is intended to reduce errors, yet the Haaland case demonstrates that human judgment remains a critical factor. The VAR’s focus on a technicality rather than the spirit of the off‑side rule suggests that further training and clearer guidelines may be needed to ensure that officials apply the law uniformly.
Adding another layer to the debate is the timing of the restart after the review. Haaland’s goal was scored at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, but the game did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds following a lengthy VAR check.
Despite this four‑minute interruption, the referee only added five minutes of stoppage time at the end of the half. Critics argue that the delay should have been reflected in a larger amount of added time, especially given the numerous other interruptions that occurred throughout the half. The VAR in question, Matt Donohue, has limited experience as a lead referee in the Premier League, having overseen only four matches in the top flight.
However, he has served as a VAR in 24 Premier League games and as an assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season. This blend of experience highlights the challenges faced by officials who must balance rapid decision‑making with the need for precise application of complex rules. In summary, the Haaland goal controversy underscores several key issues: the importance of correctly interpreting the off‑side rule beyond mere ball contact, the necessity for VAR teams to request on‑field reviews when there is any doubt about a player’s impact on play, and the need for consistent application of new technology to support, rather than replace, human judgment.
As the Premier League continues to refine its VAR procedures and integrate advanced off‑side tools, stakeholders hope that incidents like this will become rarer, preserving the integrity of the game and ensuring that decisive moments are decided fairly on the pitch.