Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the way it was adjudicated. The goal was first ruled out for off‑side on the field, only to be reinstated after a VAR review. The officials ultimately concluded that the goal should stand because Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, even though City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball.
This seemingly paradoxical outcome has left fans, pundits, and even the referees themselves questioning the exact reasoning behind the decision. The Professional Game Referees (formerly PGMOL) released a statement on Sunday night admitting that a mistake had been made when the goal was allowed. They described the incident as an "error of judgement" and offered a partial explanation: the VAR team failed to recognise the likely impact of Fernandez’s off‑side position. In other words, they acknowledged that Fernandez was indeed off‑side, but they argued that his position did not influence the play in a way that should have cancelled Haaland’s goal.
This raises a fundamental question about the interpretation of the off‑side law – does a player who is off‑side but does not touch the ball still affect the outcome? The official rule states that a player can be penalised for off‑side even without touching the ball if they interfere with an opponent’s line of sight or otherwise influence the play.
During the match, the VAR team appeared to focus on whether Fernandez made contact with the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. Sky Sports re‑played the footage, showing the VAR officials scrutinising the exact moment the ball arrived.
It seemed that the review became fixated on a technical detail – whether Fernandez actually struck the ball – rather than the broader principle that an off‑side player in a dangerous position should nullify any subsequent goal. This narrow focus may have distracted the officials from the more pertinent issue: Fernandez’s proximity to the goal line and his potential to obstruct the United goalkeeper, Andre Martinez. Pro Ref clarified that the on‑field assistant referee initially flagged Haaland for off‑side, a decision that was later overturned because Haaland was indeed on‑side.
The VAR then turned its attention to Fernandez, correctly identifying him as off‑side. However, instead of immediately concluding that the goal should be disallowed on that basis, the VAR team apparently debated whether Fernandez had actually played the ball.
This procedural misstep meant that the review did not follow the correct sequence: once an off‑side player is identified, the goal must be reviewed for any interference, not for whether the player touched the ball. The confusion was compounded by the fact that Martinez reacted to Fernandez’s movement. The United keeper raised his arms in anticipation of a header from Fernandez and shifted his balance just before Haaland struck the ball. Even though Martinez’s reaction was triggered by Fernandez, the goal was allowed because the VAR concluded that Fernandez’s off‑side position did not constitute an interference.
In hindsight, many argue that the goalkeeper’s distraction alone should have been enough to cancel the goal, as the off‑side player effectively impeded the defender’s line of sight. Adding another layer of complexity, the VAR official overseeing the review was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has limited experience as a lead referee – having officiated only four Premier League matches – he has served as a VAR in 24 matches and as an Assistant VAR in six during the 2025/26 season. His extensive VAR background suggests he is familiar with the technology, yet the incident demonstrates how even seasoned officials can misinterpret the law under pressure.
This season the Premier League has introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology, which generates a visual “kick‑point” graphic to assist officials. Unlike the previous manual method, where VAR staff placed crosshairs on the screen, the new system automatically calculates the exact moment a player becomes off‑side. While this technology aims to reduce human error, the Haaland incident shows that interpretation still hinges on the officials’ judgment about a player’s impact on the play.
Beyond the goal itself, there is an unresolved question about 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 the lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. Despite this four‑minute delay, the referee only added five minutes of extra time at the end of the half.
Critics argue that the time lost during the review should have been reflected in a larger amount of added time, suggesting that the officials may have overlooked the VAR interruption when calculating stoppage time. In summary, the Haaland goal controversy stems from a cascade of procedural missteps: an initial off‑side flag that was overturned, a subsequent focus on whether an off‑side player touched the ball, and a failure to properly assess the player’s interference with the goalkeeper. The Professional Game Referees have admitted the mistake, but the incident highlights the need for clearer guidelines on how off‑side interference is judged, especially when advanced technology is involved.
As the league continues to refine its VAR processes, this episode will likely serve as a case study for improving consistency and transparency in future decisions.