Howard Webb, the chief executive of Professional Referee Organisation (PRO), expressed deep disappointment after VAR failed to spot Enzo Fernandez’s off‑side interference in Erling Haaland’s decisive Manchester derby goal. Webb explained that the video officials became fixated on Haaland’s position, confirming he was on‑side by a few centimetres, but then neglected to assess the full attacking possession phase (APP) and the impact of Fernandez, who was standing off‑side and obstructing defenders. According to Webb, the on‑field referee initially ruled the goal out because Haaland appeared to be off‑side. VAR then reviewed the play, determined that Haaland was indeed on‑side, and, after confirming that Fernandez did not touch the ball, signalled that the goal should stand.
Webb argued that this conclusion ignored a crucial part of the off‑side law: a player can be penalised for off‑side even without touching the ball if his presence interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball. In this case, Fernandez dived toward the ball, blocking Lisandro Martinez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens, thereby affecting the defensive response. Webb described the situation as a classic case of "tunnel vision": "The VAR’s attention was locked on Haaland. Once they saw he was on‑side, they stopped looking at the rest of the phase.
The assistant VAR should have pulled the focus back to the off‑side player, but that didn’t happen. As a result, the goal was wrongly allowed." He added that the error was acknowledged internally and that the officials involved would not be assigned to matches until after the international break. Webb said PRO had already contacted Manchester United to explain the mistake, shared the audio and video evidence, and promised a thorough review of the procedural breakdown that led to the incorrect decision.
The off‑side rule, as outlined by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), states that a player in an off‑side position is penalised if he becomes involved in active play by interfering with an opponent, gaining an advantage, or playing the ball. Fernandez did not make contact with the ball, but his movement towards it impeded Martinez’s attempt to clear and limited Lammens’s ability to dive for a potential save. This interference should have been sufficient for an off‑side offence, even though the ball ultimately reached Haaland, who scored. The incident sparked a broader debate about the reliability of VAR technology.
Sky Sports analyst Laura Hunter argued that merely admitting the mistake is insufficient; a full investigation is required to restore confidence among clubs and fans. She pointed out that the Premier League’s live match centre had posted that "VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernandez didn’t play the ball," effectively ignoring the interference clause of the law. Hunter questioned whether VAR can ever be trusted to catch even basic errors if such a high‑profile case slips through.
Former Premier League referee Michael Oliver was not heard questioning the decision on the pitch, leaving observers to wonder whether the on‑field officials consulted the linesmen about who had been flagged off‑side. The three‑minute video review, according to critics, was excessive for a decision that could have been resolved with a single replay showing Fernandez’s obstruction. Kaveh Solhekol of Sky Sports News offered a more sympathetic view, acknowledging the human element in officiating. He noted that while fans, especially Manchester United supporters, would view the error as unforgivable, the VAR and his assistant are likely to suffer sleepless nights replaying the incident.
Solhekol reminded readers that mistakes are inevitable in a sport run by humans, but stressed that at the level of a Manchester derby, the margin for error should be minimal. In the aftermath, PRO reiterated its commitment to transparency. Webb emphasized that while Fernandez did not touch the ball, the off‑side rule does not require contact to constitute an offence.
He illustrated how Fernandez’s dive disrupted Martinez’s clearance and prevented Lammens from positioning himself for a possible save, thereby influencing the outcome of the play. The controversy has reignited calls for clearer protocols and possibly additional training for VAR officials to ensure they assess the entire attacking phase rather than focusing on a single player.
Some pundits suggest that automated off‑side detection systems could supplement human judgment, reducing the likelihood of tunnel‑vision errors. Others warn that over‑reliance on technology might create new kinds of mistakes, arguing that the human element remains essential for interpreting nuanced situations like interference without touch.
Ultimately, the incident serves as a reminder that the off‑side law is multifaceted and that VAR must apply it in its entirety. The failure to do so not only altered the result of a high‑stakes derby but also eroded trust in the technology that was introduced to eliminate such errors.
As the football community awaits the results of PRO’s internal review, the hope is that lessons learned will lead to more rigorous checks, better communication among officials, and a reduction in future tunnel‑vision mishaps.