Howard Webb, the chief executive of Professional Referee Organization (PRO), expressed deep disappointment after the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) team failed to spot Enzo Fernández’s off‑side interference during Erling Haaland’s decisive strike in the Manchester derby. Webb explained that the VAR officials became overly fixated on Haaland’s position, a phenomenon he described as "tunnel vision," and consequently missed the broader attacking possession phase that should have revealed Fernández’s impact from an illegal position. According to Webb, the on‑field referee initially ruled the goal out because Haaland appeared to be offside. When the VAR review was conducted, the officials determined that Haaland was actually onside by a margin of three centimetres.
However, the review process stopped there. The VAR team confirmed that Fernández did not touch the ball and therefore, in their view, did not commit a factual offside offence.
This narrow interpretation ignored a critical part of the offside law: a player can be penalised for interfering with an opponent even without touching the ball. Webb recounted the sequence of events in detail. After confirming Haaland’s on‑side status, the VAR officials should have examined the full attacking possession phase (APP).
During that phase, Fernández, who was standing in an off‑side position, dove toward the ball as it was being steered toward the net. His movement obstructed Manchester United defender Lisandro Martínez, preventing the defender from making a clear clearance, and also impeded goalkeeper Senne Lammens, who was forced to adjust his positioning.
Both actions, Webb argued, constituted interference with play, a clear breach of the off‑side rule. "The on‑field decision was not about Fernández; it was about Haaland," Webb said in an interview with Mic'd Up. "When the VAR started the check, they saw Haaland was onside. They got so focused on that that they failed to evaluate the full impact of Fernández’s off‑side position.
In that moment they experienced tunnel vision, and the rest of the VAR team did not pull them out of it. This goal should have been disallowed." Webb’s frustration is shared by many commentators. Sky Sports’ Laura Hunter argued that simply admitting the mistake is insufficient; a full‑scale review is necessary to restore confidence in the technology and the officials who operate it. She highlighted that the Premier League’s match centre posted a real‑time update stating that "VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernández didn't play the ball," effectively overlooking the law that a player can be penalised for obstructing an opponent even without ball contact.
Hunter questioned why neither VAR nor the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, seemed to consider whether the off‑side flag should have been applied to Fernández, Haaland, or both. Kaveh Solhekol of Sky Sports News offered a more sympathetic perspective, acknowledging the human element behind the error.
He noted that the VAR and his assistant are likely to endure sleepless nights replaying the incident, recognizing that "human beings make mistakes and on this occasion, two human beings made a really big mistake which I'm sure they're going to regret for a long time." Webb confirmed that PRO has reached out to Manchester United to explain the error and has provided the club with the audio and video evidence. He said the organization will conduct a thorough review to identify which part of the VAR protocol failed and how to prevent a repeat. "We want to be transparent and open," Webb said.
"The officials take personal pride in their work and are hurting now after falling short. They will not be officiating until after the international break." The incident raises broader questions about the reliability of VAR technology. Critics argue that if a system designed to eliminate clear mistakes cannot correctly apply the off‑side rule in a high‑profile match, its overall efficacy is questionable. They point out that the video review lasted nearly three minutes, yet a single replay could have shown that Fernández’s off‑side interference was enough to overturn the goal.
In practical terms, the off‑side law states that a player in an off‑side position is penalised if they become involved in active play by interfering with an opponent, gaining an advantage, or playing the ball. Interference can include actions such as obstructing the line of sight, challenging for the ball, or making a movement that distracts a defender or goalkeeper.
Fernández’s dive, although it did not involve a direct touch, clearly met these criteria by limiting Martínez’s ability to clear the ball and affecting Lammens’s positioning. The fallout from the error is likely to influence future VAR training and protocol adjustments. PRO officials may introduce additional checks to ensure that once an on‑side player is confirmed, the system automatically expands the review to include any off‑side players who could have interfered, regardless of ball contact.
Such a change would align the technology more closely with the letter of the Laws of the Game and reduce the risk of similar oversights. Overall, the Manchester derby incident serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of technology in sport. While VAR has undoubtedly corrected many clear and obvious errors, this episode demonstrates that human judgment remains a critical component. The balance between technological assistance and human interpretation must be carefully managed to preserve the integrity of the game and maintain trust among players, clubs, and fans.