Howard Webb, the chief executive of Professional Referee Organization (PRO), has publicly expressed his disappointment with the VAR decision that allowed Erling Haaland’s winning goal in the Manchester derby to stand. According to Webb, the video officials suffered from a kind of "tunnel vision" that caused them to miss a clear off‑side infringement by Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernandez. Webb explained that the on‑field referee initially flagged Haaland for off‑side, which would have nullified the goal. However, after a VAR review, the officials concluded that Haaland was, in fact, on‑side by a few centimetres.
The focus of the review then shifted entirely to Haaland’s position, and the officials confirmed that he had not touched the ball. In doing so, they failed to consider the broader attacking possession phase (APP) – the sequence of play that includes the movements of all players involved in the build‑up.
During that phase, Fernandez, who was standing well beyond the last defender, lunged for the ball and interfered with the defensive actions of Lisandro Martinez and United goalkeeper Senne Lammens. Even though Fernandez never made contact with the ball, the off‑side law states that a player can be penalised for obstructing an opponent or influencing the play from an off‑side position.
Webb pointed out that the VAR team ignored this crucial element, effectively allowing a goal that should have been disallowed. "The on‑field decision was not about Fernandez; it was about Haaland," Webb told the Mic’d Up podcast.
"When the VAR started the check, they saw Haaland was on‑side by three centimetres. They became hyper‑focused on him, confirmed his on‑side status, and then ran the full APP without truly evaluating Fernandez’s impact.
In that moment they got tunnel vision, and the rest of the VAR team did not pull them out of it. This goal should not have counted." Webb’s comments were accompanied by a detailed transcript of the VAR dialogue, which highlighted how the officials repeatedly confirmed that Haaland was on‑side and that there was "no touch" from Fernandez. The audio shows the assistant VAR stating, "Enzo, Enzo," followed by a discussion of the off‑side check, a confirmation that Haaland was on‑side, and a final decision to award the goal. Throughout this exchange, there is no mention of Fernandez’s off‑side position or his obstruction of the defenders.
In a follow‑up statement, Webb acknowledged that the error was significant and that the officials involved would not be assigned to matches until after the international break. He emphasized that PRO takes such mistakes seriously, noting that the organization has already reached out to Manchester United to explain the situation and share the relevant video and audio evidence. "We want to be transparent and open about what happened," Webb said. "We will review the entire process to understand which part of the protocol broke down, because it clearly did not lead to the correct outcome." Webb also clarified a common misconception about the off‑side rule: a player does not need to touch the ball to be penalised.
"Fernandez didn’t touch the ball, so he did not commit a factual off‑side offence of interfering with play in the strictest sense," Webb explained, "but he still impacted the defence. He dived toward the ball, obstructing Martinez’s ability to clear and limiting Lammens’ chance to react.
Those actions, even without contact, are enough to deem the play illegal under the current laws." The incident sparked a flurry of reactions from the media and former officials. Sky Sports’ Laura Hunter argued that a simple admission of error is insufficient; she called for a full‑scale review of the VAR protocol, suggesting that the technology failed to apply the off‑side law correctly. Hunter noted that the Premier League’s match centre had posted a real‑time update stating, "VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernandez didn't play the ball," which she described as a misinterpretation of the rule.
She questioned whether the reliance on video technology is justified if it cannot even catch a basic off‑side infringement. Sky Sports’ Kaveh Solhekol offered a more sympathetic perspective, acknowledging that the VAR and his assistant are human and can make mistakes, especially under the pressure of a high‑stakes derby. He suggested that the two officials will likely endure sleepless nights replaying the incident, but also reminded fans that human error is inevitable in any officiating system. "No one is hurting more than the VAR and his assistant," Solhekol said, "they will regret this mistake for a long time." The broader debate centers on whether VAR, as currently implemented, truly enhances fairness or simply adds another layer of complexity.
Critics argue that the technology’s inability to correctly interpret the off‑side rule in this case undermines its credibility. Proponents maintain that, despite occasional high‑profile errors, VAR still prevents many clear‑cut mistakes that would otherwise affect match outcomes. The Manchester derby incident serves as a stark reminder that the system is not infallible and that continuous refinement of protocols, training, and perhaps even the underlying software is essential. In summary, Howard Webb’s candid assessment highlights a critical lapse in the VAR process: an over‑concentration on Haaland’s marginal on‑side status led to the neglect of Enzo Fernandez’s off‑side interference.
The error prompted an internal review, a temporary suspension of the officials involved, and a renewed call for transparency from PRO. As the football community continues to debate the merits and drawbacks of video assistance, this episode will likely be cited as a case study in how tunnel vision can compromise the very fairness that VAR was designed to protect.