Howard Webb, the chief executive of the Professional Referee Organization, voiced strong criticism after the controversial decision in the Manchester derby that allowed Erling Haaland's winning goal to stand. Webb explained that the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) team became overly fixated on Haaland’s position, which led them to overlook the off‑side infringement committed by Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernandez. In Webb’s view, this narrow concentration – often described as "tunnel vision" – caused a clear error that should have resulted in the goal being disallowed.
The sequence of events began when Haaland received the ball near the edge of the penalty area and struck a decisive finish. On the pitch, the on‑field officials initially flagged the goal as offside, judging Haaland to be in an illegal position.
After a brief review, the VAR panel concluded that Haaland was, in fact, onside by a margin of three centimetres. The decision was then communicated to the referee, who awarded the goal.
However, the VAR analysis stopped short of examining the full attacking possession phase (APP). While confirming that Haaland had not been offside, the officials failed to assess the impact of Fernandez, who had moved into an off‑side position and then dived toward the ball.
Although Fernandez never made contact with the ball, his presence obstructed the movements of Liverpool defender Lisandro Martinez and Manchester United goalkeeper Senne Lammens. Under the Laws of the Game, a player can be penalised for off‑side interference even without touching the ball, provided his actions affect an opponent’s ability to play the ball. In this case, Fernandez’s off‑side positioning clearly impeded both the defender and the keeper. Webb recounted the VAR’s internal dialogue, noting how the assistant VAR repeatedly emphasized Haaland’s on‑side status while neglecting the broader context.
He said, "When the VAR starts their check, they see that Haaland is actually onside by three centimetres. The VAR gets super focused on Haaland. He establishes he is onside but when he runs it through the full APP, he doesn't truly evaluate the full impact of Fernandez.
In that moment, he gets tunnel vision but it is down to the rest of his team to pull him out of that tunnel and unfortunately that did not happen on this occasion. This goal should have been disallowed." Webb expressed deep disappointment, not only on behalf of the officials but also for the integrity of the sport. He emphasized that the error was acknowledged promptly and that the officials involved would be removed from duty until after the international break. "We felt it was important that we acknowledged an error in the situation.
We know that Erling Haaland was penalised for offside and wasn't in an offside position. We also know that Enzo Fernandez, who was in an offside position, almost certainly interfered with the Manchester United defence and probably the goalkeeper," Webb said.
The Professional Referee Organization has since reached out to Manchester United, providing them with the audio and video evidence that highlighted the mistake. Webb stressed that transparency is essential: "We want to ensure we are transparent and open. We have played the audio and footage to the club to let them know what happened. We will review the situation to understand what elements of the process fell down in this situation which meant we didn't get to the right outcome." Webb clarified a common misconception about off‑side offences.
While Fernandez did not touch the ball, the law states that a player can still be penalised for interfering with an opponent’s ability to play the ball. "Fernandez doesn't actually touch the ball, so he has not committed what we would call a factual offside offence of interfering with play," Webb noted, "but you can still be penalised even if you do not touch the ball. In this situation, as the ball comes across, we see Fernandez dive towards the ball and he gets close to it.
That impacts Martinez; he cannot come and clear the ball. It probably impacts Lammens as well, he cannot dive in the way he would or sets himself for potential contact from Fernandez. It is impacting the defence in a couple of ways as a result of the actions he makes in the offside position." Commentators from Sky Sports weighed in on the broader implications.
Laura Hunter argued that simply admitting the mistake is insufficient; a full‑scale review is necessary to restore confidence among clubs and fans. She highlighted that the Premier League’s match centre had posted that VAR deemed Fernandez "didn't play the ball" while he was offside, suggesting a misapplication of the rule. Hunter questioned why the VAR team did not acknowledge the interference, noting that the impact on Martinez and Lammens was evident and not merely subjective.
Kaveh Solhekol offered a more sympathetic perspective, acknowledging the human element behind the error. He noted that the VAR and his assistant would likely endure sleepless nights replaying the incident. Nonetheless, he stressed that at the level of a Manchester derby, such a mistake is unacceptable. "If you are a VAR and officiating a game as big as the Manchester derby, you really should not be making mistakes of this magnitude," he said, while also reminding listeners that officials are human and can err.
The incident reignites the debate over the reliability of video‑assisted officiating. Critics argue that if technology cannot consistently enforce the basic principles of the off‑side rule, its value is questionable. Supporters contend that the technology still offers a net improvement, but they acknowledge that proper training and procedural safeguards are essential to avoid tunnel‑vision errors like this one. In summary, Howard Webb’s statement underscores a critical lapse in the VAR process: an over‑emphasis on a single player’s position at the expense of a comprehensive assessment of the entire attacking phase.
The oversight allowed a goal that should have been ruled out to stand, prompting apologies to Manchester United, a temporary suspension of the officials involved, and renewed calls for stricter adherence to the off‑side law. The episode serves as a reminder that while technology can aid decision‑making, it must be applied with a holistic view of the play to preserve the fairness and integrity of the game.