Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the recent Manchester derby sparked a heated debate after it was allowed despite an initial off‑side call on the field. The incident has left fans, pundits and officials with a series of unanswered questions about how the decision was reached and why the technology in use appeared to fail at a critical moment. ### The Sequence of Events on the Pitch During the second half, Haaland found himself in a promising position inside the six‑yard box. Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu attempted to clear the ball, but the Norwegian forward managed to get on the end of a cross and headed it toward goal.
The ball was eventually put away, but the on‑field referee initially flagged for off‑side. The assistant referee raised his flag, signalling that Haaland was in an illegal position when the ball was played. At that point the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) team intervened. After a brief review, the decision was overturned and the goal was allowed to stand.
The VAR officials argued that Haaland was actually on‑side because the defender who played the ball was positioned correctly. However, they also noted that City midfielder Enzo Fernández was standing in an off‑side position and appeared to be attempting to play the ball before it reached Haaland.
### Official Acknowledgement of an Error Later that evening, Pro Ref – the body formerly known as the PGMOL – released a statement admitting that a mistake had been made. Their release described the incident as an "error of judgement" and offered a partial explanation: the VAR had not fully considered the impact of Fernández’s off‑side position on the play.
In other words, while the VAR recognised that Fernández was off‑side, they failed to apply the rule that a player in an off‑side position can affect the outcome even without touching the ball. The statement went on to say, "On this occasion, the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position." This wording leaves the core issue open to interpretation: why did the VAR focus on a technicality – whether Fernández actually made contact with the ball – rather than the broader principle that his mere presence in an off‑side location could have distracted the goalkeeper and altered the defensive dynamics? ### What the Off‑Side Rule Actually Says According to the Laws of the Game, a player is penalised for off‑side if, at the moment the ball is played by a teammate, they are nearer to the opponent’s goal line than both the ball and the second‑last defender, **and** they become involved in active play. "Active play" includes actions such as interfering with an opponent, gaining an advantage, or obstructing the line of sight of the goalkeeper.
In this case, Fernández was positioned six yards from the goal line, directly in front of United’s keeper, David de Gea. Even though Fernández may not have made a clean touch on the ball, his presence forced de Gea to adjust his positioning, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and briefly losing balance.
That reaction satisfies the "interfering with an opponent" clause, meaning the goal should have been disallowed. ### The VAR’s Focus on a Technicality During the broadcast, Sky Sports showed replays of the VAR team scrutinising whether Fernández actually made contact with the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. The narrative that emerged was that the VAR became preoccupied with a minute detail – a potential touch – rather than the overarching principle of off‑side interference. This raises the question of whether the VAR’s protocol was applied correctly.
The official VAR guidelines state that if there is any doubt about an off‑side offence, the on‑field referee should be asked to conduct an on‑field review (OFR) and make a subjective judgment about interference. In this instance, the VAR team appears to have skipped that step, opting instead to rely on a binary "touch or no touch" assessment. ### The Role of the On‑Field Referee and the OFR Pro Ref later suggested that the VAR should have instructed referee Michael Oliver to carry out an OFR.
An OFR allows the referee to view the incident on a pitch‑side monitor and decide whether the off‑side player impacted the play. Had Oliver been prompted to review the footage, he would likely have observed Fernández’s position, his movement toward the ball, and the goalkeeper’s reaction, leading to a different outcome. The failure to initiate an OFR is a procedural lapse that contributed directly to the erroneous decision. ### The Human Element: Matt Donohue’s Involvement The VAR on duty that day was Matt Donohue.
Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main official, he has considerable experience as a VAR, having overseen 24 matches and acted as an Assistant VAR in six more during the 2025/26 season. His expertise, however, could not compensate for the systemic issue of focusing on a technicality rather than the spirit of the off‑side law.
This incident underscores the importance of consistent training and clear communication among VAR teams, especially when semi‑automated off‑side technology is involved. ### Semi‑Automated Off‑Side Technology – A Double‑Edged Sword The Premier League introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology for the 2025/26 campaign.
The system generates a "kick‑point" graphic that indicates the exact moment the ball is played and overlays a line showing which players are on‑side or off‑side. While this technology reduces the time needed for manual cross‑hair placement, it also adds a layer of complexity. The VAR must interpret the graphic correctly and then apply the law regarding interference. In the Haaland incident, the graphic correctly identified Fernández as off‑side, but the subsequent human analysis failed to translate that data into a proper ruling.
### Timing of the Goal and Added Time Controversy Another lingering question from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the match. Haaland’s goal was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds.
After the lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds, meaning the goal itself consumed nearly four minutes of the half. Yet the referee only added five minutes of injury time at the final whistle.
Critics argue that the time taken for the VAR review should have been reflected in a larger added‑time allocation, especially given the number of other interruptions that occurred throughout the half. ### Broader Implications for the Premier League The incident has reignited calls for greater transparency and consistency in VAR procedures.
Fans and analysts alike are demanding clearer explanations when errors occur, as well as stricter adherence to the protocol that mandates an OFR when there is any doubt about interference. Moreover, the episode highlights the need for continuous education of referees and VAR officials on how to interpret the semi‑automated data in line with the Laws of the Game. ### Conclusion In summary, Haaland’s winning goal was allowed due to a cascade of missteps: an initial off‑side call that was reversed, a VAR focus on whether Fernández touched the ball rather than whether his position interfered with the goalkeeper, and the omission of an on‑field review that could have corrected the mistake.
While the technology provided accurate positional data, the human element failed to apply the law correctly. The Premier League’s governing bodies have acknowledged the error, but the incident serves as a reminder that both technology and human judgment must work together seamlessly to preserve the integrity of the sport. The controversy continues to fuel debate about how VAR should evolve, how much time should be added for lengthy reviews, and how officials can better communicate their decisions to the public.
As the league moves forward, the lessons from this derby will likely shape future protocols and training programs, ensuring that similar mistakes are less likely to recur.