The dramatic winner that Erling Haaland struck in the Manchester derby on Sunday has become the subject of intense debate, not only because of the way it was scored but also because of the procedural mishaps that surrounded the decision. The goal was first signalled as off‑side on the field, only to be overturned after a review by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) team.
The VAR officials concluded that the on‑field assistant had made an error and that Haaland had been played on‑side by United defender Patrick Dorgu. However, the situation was far more complex: Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned in an off‑side location and appeared to attempt to play the ball before it reached Haaland. This nuance has sparked a cascade of questions about why the technology and the officials failed to apply the off‑side rule correctly.
The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL or PGMO) – the body that oversees refereeing standards in English football – issued a statement on Sunday night admitting that a mistake had been made when the goal was awarded. Their acknowledgement was phrased as an "error of judgement" and offered only a partial rationale.
They admitted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez was off‑side, yet they added that "the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position." This wording leaves the central issue unresolved: why did the VAR not appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header, could be considered to have interfered with play or gained an advantage, even if he did not make contact with the ball? In a mid‑match post on the official X account, the Match Centre explained the decision by stating: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernandez didn't play the ball." Sky Sports' coverage showed replays of the VAR team focusing intently on whether Fernandez touched the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. This focus on a technicality – whether a touch occurred – seems to have distracted the officials from the broader principle of the off‑side law, which states that a player can be penalised for being in an off‑side position regardless of whether he actually touches the ball, if his presence influences an opponent's actions.
According to Pro Ref, the initial on‑field decision was that Haaland was off‑side, which was later corrected to on‑side. The review then shifted to Fernandez, correctly identifying him as being in an off‑side position.
The controversy arises from the subsequent, apparently erroneous, emphasis on whether Fernandez touched the ball. The VAR team failed to confirm that the goal should have been ruled out on the basis of Fernandez's off‑side position, instead focusing on Haaland's earlier off‑side call. This procedural misstep led Pro Ref to argue that the VAR should have asked the referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to make a subjective judgment on whether Fernandez's position interfered with play.
Video evidence also shows United goalkeeper Andre Martinez reacting to Fernandez's movement – raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland struck the ball. Even though Martinez was influenced by Fernandez's positioning, the goal should have been disallowed regardless of whether the goalkeeper was distracted, because the off‑side offence was committed by Fernandez, not Haaland.
In other words, the goal was invalid for an off‑side offence that was not correctly identified at the time. The chain of logic can be summarised as follows: the on‑field assistant flagged Haaland as off‑side, the VAR corrected this to on‑side, then identified Fernandez as off‑side, but mistakenly centred the decision on whether Fernandez touched the ball.
Because the VAR did not apply the correct interpretation of the off‑side rule – which penalises a player for gaining an advantage or interfering with an opponent even without touching the ball – the goal was incorrectly allowed to stand. The correct procedure would have been to request an on‑field review, where Oliver could have evaluated the impact of Fernandez's position on Martinez's actions and on the subsequent play.
The VAR in charge of the review was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main referee, he has extensive experience as a VAR, having overseen 24 Premier League games and acted as an assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season. This expertise, however, did not prevent the misapplication of the rule in this high‑profile incident. Adding another layer of complexity, the Premier League introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology for the 2025/26 season.
This system provides a visual kick‑point graphic that is intended to make off‑side calls more precise, replacing the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine the position of players. While the technology is designed to reduce human error, it still relies on the officials to interpret the data correctly. In this case, the technology may have highlighted Fernandez's position, but the subsequent human analysis failed to apply the rule consistently.
A final, often‑overlooked question concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the half. Haaland's goal was scored at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after a lengthy VAR review, play did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds.
Despite this four‑minute interruption, the referee added only five minutes of stoppage time to the half. Critics argue that the delay caused by the VAR review should have been reflected in a longer added‑on period, especially given the number of other interruptions that occurred throughout the half. In summary, the controversy surrounding Haaland's winning goal can be broken down into several key points: 1.
The on‑field assistant initially flagged Haaland as off‑side, a decision later reversed by VAR. 2. The VAR correctly identified Fernandez as off‑side but focused incorrectly on whether he touched the ball. 3.
The off‑side law penalises a player for interfering with play or gaining an advantage, even without contact, a nuance missed by the VAR. 4.
An on‑field review by referee Michael Oliver was not requested, which could have resolved the ambiguity. 5. The semi‑automated off‑side technology, while advanced, still depends on accurate human interpretation.
6. The amount of added time after the review was arguably insufficient given the length of the interruption. These factors collectively illustrate how a combination of human error, procedural lapses, and the challenges of integrating new technology can lead to a high‑stakes decision being mishandled. The incident has reignited calls for clearer guidelines on VAR protocols, especially regarding off‑side assessments, and for ensuring that referees are empowered to conduct on‑field reviews when the situation demands it.
As the Premier League moves forward, the lessons from this derby will likely shape future officiating standards and the continued evolution of VAR technology.