In the Manchester derby on Sunday, Erling Haaland found the back of the net in a manner that has sparked intense debate among fans, pundits, and officials alike. While the goal ultimately stood, the sequence of decisions that led to its validation was anything but straightforward, and several lingering questions remain about why the error occurred in the first place.
The incident began with the on‑field referee initially flagging Haaland for offside, a decision that was quickly overturned after a review by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) team. According to the VAR officials, Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland onside, thereby allowing the goal to stand. However, the situation was complicated by the presence of Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez, who was positioned offside when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland. Professional Game Referees, formerly known as the PGMOL, issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake had been made in awarding the winning goal.
Their admission was limited to an "error of judgement" and offered only a partial explanation for the mishap. They conceded that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez was offside, but added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position." This phrasing leaves the core issue unresolved: why did the VAR fail to appreciate that a player standing six yards from goal, attempting a diving header, should have been judged as having interfered with play?
The most plausible explanation, based on the information released, is that the VAR team became overly fixated on whether Fernandez actually made contact with the ball. In a mid‑game post on X, Match Centre explained the decision by stating, "The VAR also deemed that while in an offside position, Fernandez didn't play the ball." Sky Sports' coverage showed replays of the VAR team scrutinising the precise moment the ball crossed the six‑yard box, looking for any sign that Fernandez touched it. This narrow focus on a technicality may have distracted the officials from the broader principle of the offside law, which stipulates that a player can be penalised for being in an offside position regardless of whether they touch the ball, if they influence an opponent's ability to play the ball. Pro Ref clarified that the initial offside call was indeed made against Haaland, who was correctly judged to be onside.
The review then shifted to Fernandez, whose offside position was correctly identified. The problem arose when the VAR team appeared to concentrate solely on whether Fernandez touched the ball, rather than considering the full impact of his presence in an offside position. Consequently, they were unable to correctly overturn the original decision that should have nullified the goal due to Fernandez's offside, not Haaland's. According to the VAR protocol, when there is uncertainty about whether an offside player has interfered with play, the on‑field referee should be asked to conduct an on‑field review.
In this case, the VAR should have prompted referee Michael Oliver to assess whether Fernandez's positioning had affected the goalkeeper or the defensive line. Instead, the VAR concluded the review without this crucial step, leading to the erroneous awarding of Haaland's goal. Video evidence also shows Manchester United goalkeeper Andre Martinez reacting to Fernandez's movement. Martinez raised his arms in anticipation of a header and shifted his balance just as Haaland struck the ball.
Even if Martinez was momentarily distracted by Fernandez's attempt, the offside infringement had already occurred, meaning the goal should have been disallowed irrespective of the goalkeeper's reaction. The situation can be summarised as a "yes and no" scenario: yes, the offside call was incorrectly applied to an on‑side player (Haaland), and no, the goal should have been ruled out because of Fernandez's offside position.
Because the on‑field decision targeted the wrong player, the correct procedural response would have been to request an on‑field review, allowing the referee to make a subjective judgment about any interference. In the aftermath, several officials expressed frustration. One quoted official said, "I think [Fernandez] was offside.
What I can’t understand is the rules. He was there! I went to him because he was in front of me. That’s why Haaland was free at the back.
I want to be calm but it is so hard. Five or six people (officials) doing this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable. We have to go home with this injustice." The VAR on duty for the match was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League games as the main official, he has amassed considerable VAR experience, acting as the video referee for 24 Premier League matches and as an assistant VAR in six games during the 2025/26 season.
Adding another layer of complexity, the Premier League has introduced semi‑automated offside technology this season. This system generates a kick‑point graphic for each review, replacing the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs to determine offside positions.
While the technology is intended to improve accuracy and speed, it also introduces new variables that officials must interpret correctly. A final unanswered question concerns the amount of added time at the end of the match. Haaland's goal was scored after 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and the subsequent VAR review delayed the restart of play until 63 minutes and 15 seconds.
Despite this four‑minute interruption, the referee only added five minutes of stoppage time at the end of the half, raising doubts about whether the officials accounted for the lengthy review when calculating extra time. In summary, the controversy surrounding Haaland's winning goal highlights several systemic issues: an over‑reliance on technical minutiae by the VAR team, a failure to follow established protocols for on‑field reviews, and potential inconsistencies in how stoppage time is calculated after extensive VAR interventions.
As the Premier League continues to integrate advanced technology, it will be essential for officials to receive clearer guidance and training to ensure that such high‑stakes decisions are handled with the precision and fairness that the game demands. Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m! Enter for free.