Howard Webb, the chief executive of the professional refereeing body, expressed deep disappointment after VAR failed to spot Enzo Fernandez's off‑side interference in Erling Haaland's decisive Manchester derby strike. Webb explained that the video officials became overly fixated on Haaland's positioning, a phenomenon he described as "tunnel vision," which caused them to overlook the crucial impact of Fernandez, who was standing in an illegal off‑side location. According to Webb, the on‑field referee initially disallowed the goal because Haaland appeared to be off‑side. When the VAR team reviewed the incident, they concluded that Haaland was actually on‑side by a margin of three centimetres.
However, the review stopped there. The officials confirmed that Fernandez had not touched the ball and, under the mistaken belief that a player must handle the ball to be penalised, they allowed the goal to stand. Webb clarified that the laws of the game state a player can be penalised for off‑side interference even without touching the ball, provided his actions affect an opponent’s ability to play. Webb recounted the sequence of events in a Mic'd Up interview: "The on‑field decision was not about Fernandez; it was about Haaland.
When VAR started their check, they saw Haaland was on‑side. They then narrowed their focus to the striker and failed to evaluate the full attacking possession phase, which includes any off‑side players influencing the defence.
In that moment, they got tunnel vision. The rest of the VAR team should have pulled them out of that tunnel, but they didn't, and the goal was incorrectly awarded." The incident unfolded as follows. Fernandez dove toward the ball as Haaland prepared to strike, positioning himself between the ball and Manchester United defenders Lisandro Martinez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens.
Although Fernandez never made contact with the ball, his presence obstructed Martinez's attempt to clear and limited Lammens' ability to dive for a save. The VAR officials, after confirming that Fernandez had not touched the ball, declared the play clean and confirmed the goal, despite the clear interference. Webb said the error was acknowledged internally and communicated to Manchester United. "We have played the audio and video footage for the club to show exactly what happened.
We are reviewing every step of the process to understand where the breakdown occurred. The officials involved will not be working again until after the international break, and they are understandably upset with themselves." He added that while Fernandez did not commit a "factual off‑side offence" by touching the ball, the off‑side rule also covers situations where a player in an off‑side position impedes an opponent. "Fernandez's dive impacted Martinez's clearance and Lammens' positioning. That is interference, and the law requires a penalty," Webb emphasized.
The reaction from the media was swift. Sky Sports analyst Laura Hunter argued that simply admitting the mistake should not absolve Pro Ref of responsibility.
She noted that the Premier League's match centre tweet claimed "VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernandez didn't play the ball," suggesting a misinterpretation of the rule. Hunter pointed out that the VAR team ignored the objective fact that Fernandez was live in the play and was influencing the defence, a point that should have been clear from the laws. Sky Sports' Kaveh Solhekol offered a more sympathetic view, acknowledging the human element behind the error. He said, "I have sympathy for the VAR and his assistant—they made a mistake, and many Manchester United fans will see it as unforgivable.
But they are human. They will likely spend sleepless nights replaying the incident, regretting the impact of their error on such a high‑profile match." The controversy raises broader questions about the reliability of video‑assisted refereeing. Critics argue that if sophisticated technology cannot consistently enforce basic off‑side rules, its overall value is questionable.
Pro Ref has pledged greater transparency, promising a thorough post‑match review and a public report detailing the procedural failures. In summary, Webb's statements highlight three key failures: (1) an over‑emphasis on Haaland's position, (2) a failure to assess the full attacking possession phase, and (3) a misapplication of the off‑side rule concerning a player who interferes without touching the ball. The incident underscores the need for VAR officials to maintain a broader perspective during reviews and to apply the laws in their entirety, ensuring that off‑side offences are correctly identified even when the offending player does not make contact with the ball.