The decisive strike by Erling Haaland in the recent Manchester derby sparked a heated debate due to the unusual circumstances surrounding its validation. Initially, the on‑field officials ruled the goal out for off‑side, but the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) later reversed that decision, allowing the goal to stand. The VAR panel concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland on‑side, yet they overlooked the fact that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned off‑side when he attempted to intervene with the ball before it reached Haaland.
In the aftermath, the Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement acknowledging that a mistake had been made in awarding the goal. Their admission, however, only partially explained the error, describing it as an "error of judgement" without fully addressing why the VAR failed to recognise the impact of Fernandez's off‑side position. According to the statement, the VAR did not appreciate the likely influence of Fernandez, who was six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header on a ball that was already between two defenders. The core issue remains: why did the VAR not consider that a player in an off‑side position can affect play even if he does not make contact with the ball?
Match Centre, in a mid‑game post on X, clarified that the VAR deemed Fernandez to be off‑side but concluded that he did not play the ball. Sky Sports' coverage showed replays where the VAR team appeared to scrutinise whether Fernandez actually touched the ball as it flew across the six‑yard box. This focus on a technicality may have distracted the officials from the broader principle of the off‑side law, which states that a player can be penalised for being off‑side regardless of whether he makes contact with the ball.
Pro Ref explained that the initial off‑side call was made against Haaland, who was, in fact, on‑side. The review then shifted to Fernandez, correctly identifying his off‑side position. However, the VAR panel seemed to become fixated on whether Fernandez touched the ball, rather than on the more fundamental question of whether his presence interfered with play. This misdirection meant that the VAR could not correctly overturn the original decision, leading to a confusing situation where the goal was allowed for the wrong reason.
According to the VAR protocol, the appropriate response should have been an on‑field review by referee Michael Oliver, who would have been asked to make a subjective judgment on whether Fernandez's off‑side position impacted the play. The failure to initiate this review contributed to the controversy. Video evidence also shows United goalkeeper David de Gea reacting to Fernandez's movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland's shot.
Even if de Gea was distracted by Fernandez, the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez's off‑side position had already interfered with the goalkeeper's positioning. The situation can be summarised as follows: the off‑side call was initially applied to an on‑side player (Haaland), and the goal should have been ruled out due to Fernandez's off‑side position, not because of any alleged touch. The correct procedural step would have been to ask Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, but this was not done.
This procedural lapse highlights a broader issue within the Premier League's officiating system, where multiple officials can make the same mistake in a high‑stakes match, undermining confidence in the decision‑making process. Matt Donohue served as the VAR for the match.
Although he has only refereed four Premier League games, his experience as a VAR is extensive, having overseen 24 Premier League matches and acted as Assistant VAR in six games during the 2025/26 season. The league is now employing semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a kick‑point graphic for incidents under review. This technology replaces the older manual method where VAR officials placed crosshairs on the screen to determine off‑side positions. Another lingering question from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the goal.
Haaland's strike occurred at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after a lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. Despite this significant delay, the referee only added five minutes of injury time at the end of the half. This discrepancy raises concerns about whether officials accounted for the VAR review when calculating added time, potentially affecting the flow and fairness of the game. Overall, the incident underscores the complexities of modern football officiating, where technology, human judgement, and procedural protocols intersect.
The Premier League's adoption of semi‑automated off‑side tools aims to reduce errors, but the Haaland goal controversy demonstrates that interpretation and application of the rules remain critical. For fans, players, and officials alike, clarity and consistency are essential to preserving the integrity of the sport. As the league continues to refine its VAR processes and technology, stakeholders will be watching closely to ensure that similar mistakes are avoided in future high‑profile matches.