The governing body for English football referees, known as Pro Ref, has publicly acknowledged a mistake in the decision that awarded Manchester City a 1-0 win over Manchester United at Old Trafford. In a statement issued only a few hours after the match, Pro Ref confirmed that it had reached out to Manchester United to admit an "error of judgment" and conceded that the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) should have recommended an on‑field review of Erling Haaland's decisive goal. According to Sky Sports News, United have been handed an apology for the incorrect VAR ruling, although the club has said it will not pursue any further action against the refereeing organization. The Red Devils remain deeply frustrated by the incident, but they have expressed appreciation for the efforts of former Premier League referee Howard Webb and the Pro Ref team in acknowledging and explaining the error.
The controversy centres on the moment when Haaland scored the only goal of the match. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the strike as offside, but the VAR intervened and reversed the decision, allowing the goal to stand.
The VAR panel determined that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland onside. However, they also noted that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández was in an offside position when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland.
Even though Fernández never actually made contact with the ball, his movement was judged to have interfered with United defender Lisandro Martínez, potentially affecting Martínez's ability to defend the back‑post finish. Under the Laws of the Game, such interference can be sufficient to keep a goal disallowed, regardless of whether the offside player touches the ball.
A Pro Ref spokesperson elaborated on the incident, saying: "Following the 60th‑minute incident in Sunday's Premier League fixture between Manchester United and Manchester City at Old Trafford, we can provide clarification regarding Erling Haaland's awarded goal. The on‑field decision was offside against Haaland – that was checked by VAR and he was found to be onside.
In the same attack, it was established that Enzo Fernández did not play the ball and therefore that makes any offside offence subjective. However, on this occasion the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on‑field review.
Contact has been made with Manchester United this evening to acknowledge what we deem is an error of judgment. A review of the incident will take place." Pro Ref, formerly known as the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) before a summer rebrand, is overseen by Howard Webb and is responsible for officiating the four top men’s divisions, the National League, the Women’s Super League and the U21 Premier League 2. The organization’s admission of fault is unusual, as most officiating bodies tend to defend their decisions.
The Premier League Match Centre posted on X (formerly Twitter) a brief explanation for why the goal was allowed: "VAR checked the referee's call of no goal for offside – and determined that Haaland was in an onside position and recommended that the goal was awarded. The VAR also deemed that while in an offside position, Fernández didn't play the ball." This phrasing placed heavy emphasis on Fernández's lack of contact, a point that many pundits argued missed the broader interpretation of the offside rule. The offside law states that a player can be penalised for being offside even if they do not touch the ball, provided they interfere with an opponent’s ability to play the ball.
In this case, Fernández’s movement appeared to obstruct Martínez, which should have been sufficient to nullify the goal. Former Manchester United defender Gary Neville, commenting alongside Sky Sports co‑commentator, described the VAR decision as "wrong" and predicted that Pro Ref would eventually issue an apology. Neville later reiterated his view on his own podcast, stating: "I think they are ignoring the rule. They are digging themselves a bigger hole with the Match Centre statement.
I'm really surprised they put that out. They will have to retract that." Martínez himself was outspoken after the match, telling Sky Sports: "Every season the officials come to our club and spend an hour explaining the rules and they look so confident with that. Then after, five or six people doing this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable.
We have to go home with this injustice." Former Manchester City defender Micah Richards also dismissed the Match Centre’s justification, calling it "nonsense". He argued that Fernández was clearly attempting to play the ball and that his movement inevitably affected the defender: "One hundred per cent he is. I think it's been a bad day for referees and VAR. They got the Phil Foden decision wrong, and they got this decision wrong.
How can you not say Enzo Fernández is challenging for the ball – of course he is!" Roy Keane added his perspective, stating that Fernández was interfering with play and that United were unfairly punished for maintaining a solid defensive line: "When you are in that position, you are impacting the game. You're in the middle of the box, you're going for the ball. Their line is good.
Fernández is offside, and he goes to play the ball, so United are getting punished for good defending." Jamie Carragher, former Liverpool defender, also described the decision as "a bad one" ahead of Monday Night Football. He noted that the incident seemed to stem from an over‑focus on Haaland’s onside status while neglecting the impact of Fernández’s positioning: "It looks offside but we know he’s not.
Then when you break it down, it is poor from the officials. It seems to me they've become obsessed with Haaland being onside. They haven't gone into as much detail with Fernández in the middle and understanding of his impact on it." The episode has drawn parallels with a previous VAR controversy involving Liverpool’s Luis Diaz, whose goal against Tottenham was incorrectly ruled out for offside. Carragher argued that while the Liverpool incident was largely a communication error, the Haaland decision was a far more significant mistake because it occurred in a high‑profile, title‑relevant match with only one goal scored, magnifying its impact.
Overall, the incident has reignited debate over VAR’s role, the clarity of the offside rule, and the accountability of officiating bodies. Pro Ref’s apology, while a step toward transparency, may not satisfy United supporters or neutral observers who feel the decision altered the outcome of a crucial derby.
The broader conversation continues as clubs, pundits, and fans call for clearer guidelines and perhaps a reevaluation of how VAR interventions are applied in future fixtures.