The winning strike by Erling Haaland in the recent Manchester derby sparked a heated debate because of the way it was allowed to stand, and several aspects of the incident still lack clear answers. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the goal for offside, but the video assistant referee (VAR) later overruled that decision, declaring the goal valid. The VAR panel argued that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, yet they also noted that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned offside when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland. In order to follow the discussion, viewers were asked to use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player, indicating that the original footage was hosted on a platform with limited compatibility for other browsers.
The controversy revolves around a series of technical and interpretive errors that occurred during the review process. The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL or PGMO) issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake had been made when the goal was awarded.
They described the incident as an "error of judgement" but only provided a partial rationale for why the decision was incorrect. While they admitted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernández was offside, they added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position" on the play.
This phrasing leaves the central question unresolved: why did the VAR fail to appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, making a diving header attempt, should have been judged as having interfered with play, even if he did not make contact with the ball? The match centre’s mid‑game post on X (formerly Twitter) explained that the VAR concluded that, although Fernández was in an offside position, he did not play the ball.
Sky Sports’ coverage showed replays of the VAR team scrutinising whether Fernández had touched the ball as it flew across the six‑yard box. This focus on a technicality—whether a touch occurred—appears to have distracted the officials from the broader principle of the offside law, which states that a player can be penalised for being offside regardless of whether he actually touches the ball, provided he interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball. According to Pro Ref, the initial offside call was made against Haaland himself, but the review determined that he was onside.
The attention then shifted to Fernández, who was correctly identified as being in an offside position. However, the VAR panel seemed to concentrate exclusively on whether Fernández had made contact with the ball, rather than assessing his overall influence on the play.
This misstep meant that the VAR could not correctly confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for the offside offence committed by Fernández, because they were still operating under the premise that the original offside call against Haaland might have been valid. Pro Ref argued that the proper protocol would have been to ask the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review. In such a review, Oliver would have been required to make a subjective judgement about whether Fernández’s position interfered with the goalkeeper’s actions or otherwise impacted the play.
The video evidence shows United goalkeeper Andre Martinez reacting to Fernández’s movement: he raised his arms in anticipation of a header and lost his balance just before Haaland struck the ball. Even though Martinez was already influenced by Fernández’s presence, the goal should have been ruled out on the basis of the offside offence, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper was distracted. The situation can be summarised as both a "yes" and a "no": yes, because the offside call was initially applied to an on‑side player (Haaland), and no, because the goal should have been disallowed due to Fernández’s offside position.
The correct procedural response, according to the laws of the game, would have been to request an on‑field review after the VAR concluded that Fernández was offside, rather than allowing the goal to stand. The reaction from the Manchester United side highlighted the frustration with the decision.
A player quoted in the aftermath said, "I think [Fernández] 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 officials making this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable.
We have to go home with this injustice." The VAR official responsible for the review was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main referee, he has extensive experience as a VAR, having served in that capacity for 24 Premier League games and six as an assistant VAR during the 2025/26 season. His involvement underscores the growing reliance on technology and specialist officials to adjudicate complex situations. This season, the Premier League introduced semi‑automated offside technology, which provides a visual "kick‑point" graphic to assist officials during reviews.
This system differs from the previous method where VAR teams manually placed crosshairs on the screen to determine offside positions and then drew lines to illustrate the decision. While the new technology aims to increase accuracy and speed, the Haaland incident demonstrates that human interpretation remains a critical factor. Another lingering question from the derby concerns the amount of added time allocated at the end of the match. Haaland’s goal was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after the lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds.
Despite this four‑minute interruption, only five minutes of stoppage time were added at the conclusion of the half. Observers have speculated that the officials may have neglected to factor the VAR review into their calculation of added time, raising further concerns about consistency in match management. In summary, the controversy surrounding Haaland’s goal stems from a cascade of errors: an initial offside flag that was incorrectly applied, a VAR focus on an irrelevant technical detail, a failure to request an on‑field review, and possibly an oversight in calculating stoppage time.
The incident highlights the challenges of integrating advanced technology with human decision‑making in a fast‑paced sport. As the league continues to refine its protocols and invest in semi‑automated systems, stakeholders hope that such high‑profile mistakes will become rarer, preserving the integrity of the game and ensuring that outcomes are decided on the field rather than in the VAR room. For fans seeking additional engagement, the Premier League is running a promotion called "Play Super 6" where participants can enter for free for a chance to win £1 million.