Erling Haaland’s decisive strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the way it was allowed to stand, and several lingering questions still need answers. The goal was first ruled out for off‑side on the field, only to be reinstated after a VAR review. According to the VAR officials, Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, but Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned offside when he attempted to play the ball before it reached the Norwegian forward.
In this article we examine the main points of contention surrounding the incident, outline the statements from the governing bodies, and explore why the technology and the officials appeared to miss a clear off‑side offence. **The official admission of error** The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night confirming that a mistake had been made when the goal was awarded.
Their wording described the situation as "an error of judgement" and offered only a partial explanation for the mishap. While they conceded that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernández was off‑side, they added that "the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position".
This phrasing leaves a crucial question unanswered: why did the VAR fail to appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, making a diving header, and in an off‑side position, had either directly interfered with play or created a clear opportunity for the opposition goalkeeper to be distracted? **What the VAR actually examined** During the match, the VAR team posted a mid‑game update on X (formerly Twitter) stating: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernández didn't play the ball." Replays shown on Sky Sports highlighted the VAR analysts focusing on whether Fernández made contact with the ball as it travelled across the six‑yard box. This raises the possibility that the VAR became fixated on a technical detail – the act of touching the ball – rather than the broader principle of off‑side interference. The off‑side law is clear that a player can be penalised for being in an off‑side position even if he does not touch the ball, provided he obstructs an opponent’s line of sight or otherwise influences the play.
**Sequence of the review** According to Pro Ref, the first off‑side decision was made against Haaland, who was correctly judged to be on‑side. The review then shifted to Fernández, who was correctly identified as being in an off‑side position.
However, the VAR team appears to have spent the bulk of their time deciding whether Fernández had actually touched the ball, rather than assessing whether his mere presence in that position constituted interference. In effect, they failed to confirm that the goal should have been ruled out for the correct reason – Fernández’s off‑side – and instead focused on an irrelevant factor. **Why an on‑field review was missed** Pro Ref argued that the VAR should have asked referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, asking him to make a subjective judgement about whether Fernández impacted play. In practice, this would have meant Oliver examining the goalkeeper’s reaction and deciding if Fernández’s positioning had affected the keeper’s ability to make a save.
The video evidence shows United goalkeeper David de Gea (or the relevant keeper) initially reacting to Fernández, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing balance just before Haaland struck the ball. Even if the keeper’s movement was partially caused by Fernández’s presence, the goal should have been disallowed regardless of whether the keeper was distracted by a potential header. **The contradictory conclusions** One could argue that the decision was "yes" because the off‑side call was applied to an on‑side player (Haaland), and "no" because the goal should have been ruled out for the off‑side offence committed by Fernández.
The official on‑field decision was indeed against Haaland, which meant the only proper protocol, if followed precisely, would have been to request an on‑field review. Instead, the VAR’s focus on a technicality led to a misapplication of the rule. **Quotes from the officials** A frustrated official was quoted saying: "I think [Fernández] was off‑side. What I can’t understand are 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 stay calm but it is so hard. Five or six people making this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable. We have to go home with this injustice." This sentiment underscores the pressure on officials to get split‑second decisions right, and the disappointment when the system fails. **Who was the VAR?** The VAR on duty was Matt Donohue.
Though he has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main referee, he has extensive VAR experience, having served as VAR for 24 Premier League games and as Assistant VAR for six matches in the 2025/26 season. His involvement adds another layer to the discussion about the expertise required for high‑stakes VAR decisions. **Technology and its limits** The Premier League is now using semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a kick‑point graphic for incidents under review. This system differs from the older method where VAR teams manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine off‑side positions.
While the new technology offers greater precision, it still relies on human interpretation of the graphic and the underlying law. In this case, the graphic may have shown Fernández’s position clearly, but the officials did not translate that data into the correct application of the rule. **Time‑keeping concerns** Another unresolved issue from the derby concerns the amount of added time.
Haaland’s goal came at 59 minutes and 24 seconds. After a lengthy VAR check, play did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds, yet only five minutes of stoppage time were announced at the end of the half.
The discrepancy between the actual delay and the allocated added time raises questions about whether the officials also overlooked the VAR review when calculating stoppage time, potentially affecting the flow of the game. **Broader implications** The incident highlights several systemic challenges: the need for clearer protocols when an off‑side player interferes without touching the ball, the importance of training VAR officials to prioritize the core principles of the law over peripheral technicalities, and the necessity of transparent communication with fans about why decisions are made.
As the Premier League continues to integrate advanced technology, it must also ensure that the human element—interpretation, judgment, and accountability—keeps pace with the tools. **Conclusion** In summary, Haaland’s winning goal was allowed due to a cascade of misinterpretations: the VAR correctly identified Haaland as on‑side, correctly flagged Fernández as off‑side, but then fixated on whether Fernández touched the ball, neglecting the fundamental rule that a player in an off‑side position can be penalised for influencing play even without contact.
The failure to request an on‑field review compounded the error, and the subsequent admission by Pro Ref confirms that the decision was a mistake. This episode serves as a reminder that even with sophisticated technology, the clarity of the laws and the consistency of their application remain paramount for preserving the integrity of the game.