Former professional referee chief Howard Webb has publicly expressed his disappointment with a recent VAR decision in the Manchester derby, where a goal credited to Erling Haaland was allowed despite an apparent off‑side infringement by Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernandez. Webb argues that the video officials became so fixated on confirming Haaland’s position that they completely missed Fernandez’s interference from an off‑side spot, an error he describes as a classic case of "tunnel vision." According to Webb, the on‑field referee initially flagged Haaland for off‑side, nullifying the strike.
When the VAR team reviewed the play, they concluded that Haaland was actually on‑side by a margin of just three centimetres. That finding prompted them to overturn the referee’s call and award the goal.
However, Webb points out that the VAR review stopped short of examining the full attacking possession phase (APP). In doing so, the officials overlooked the fact that Fernandez, who was standing in an off‑side position, dived for the ball and obstructed the movements of both Lisandro Martinez and United goalkeeper Senne Lammens. Even though Fernandez never made contact with the ball, the laws of the game state that a player can be penalised for off‑side if he interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball, regardless of touch. Webb explained to the Mic'd Up podcast, "The on‑field decision was not about Fernandez; it was about Haaland.
When VAR started their check, they saw Haaland was on‑side. But they became hyper‑focused on that detail and failed to evaluate the broader impact of Fernandez’s off‑side position. In that moment they got tunnel vision, and the rest of the VAR team didn’t pull them out of it. This goal should have been disallowed." The sequence of commentary captured during the VAR review illustrates the narrow scope of the analysis.
After confirming Haaland’s on‑side status, the assistant VAR announced, "No touch there from Enzo Fernandez, confirm no touch. Goal." The decision was then communicated to the referee, who changed his original off‑side call to a goal.
Webb later clarified that while Fernandez did not touch the ball, his movement still constituted interference. He said, "Fernandez dived towards the ball, got close to it, and that prevented Martinez from clearing the ball and limited Lammens’ ability to react. Those are clear impacts on the defence, even without a touch." Webb’s chief operating officer role at Pro Ref gave him insight into the internal response. He said the organization had already reached out to Manchester United to acknowledge the mistake, sharing the audio and video evidence that highlighted where the process broke down.
"We want to be transparent," Webb added, noting that the officials involved would not be assigned to any matches until after the international break, reflecting the seriousness with which Pro Ref treats the error. The incident sparked a broader debate among pundits and fans about the reliability of VAR technology.
Sky Sports analyst Laura Hunter argued that merely admitting the mistake is insufficient, calling for a comprehensive review of the protocols that led to the erroneous goal. She highlighted that the Premier League’s match centre had posted a real‑time update stating, "VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernandez didn't play the ball," effectively ignoring the interference clause of the off‑side law. Hunter questioned whether VAR officials truly considered the full extent of the rule, noting that the video review lasted nearly three minutes despite the fact that a single replay could have revealed the error. Kaveh Solhekol of Sky Sports News offered a more sympathetic perspective, acknowledging the human element behind the mistake.
He noted that while the error was "unforgivable" to many Manchester United supporters, the VAR and his assistant would likely endure sleepless nights replaying the incident. Solhekol emphasized that even highly trained officials can err, especially under the intense pressure of a high‑stakes derby.
The controversy raises fundamental questions about the role of technology in football officiating. If a sophisticated video system cannot reliably enforce a basic off‑side rule, critics argue that its overall value is questionable.
Proponents, however, maintain that VAR, when applied correctly, reduces clear and obvious errors and that isolated incidents should not undermine the entire system. In summary, Howard Webb’s critique underscores a critical flaw in the VAR process: an over‑emphasis on a single player’s position at the expense of a holistic assessment of the attacking phase.
By neglecting Enzo Fernandez’s off‑side interference, the officials allowed a goal that, according to the laws of the game, should have been disallowed. The incident has prompted calls for clearer guidelines, better training, and perhaps a reevaluation of how VAR teams conduct their reviews to ensure that tunnel vision does not compromise the integrity of the sport.