Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the recent Manchester derby sparked a heated debate because of the way it was adjudicated. The goal was first signalled as off‑side by the on‑field officials, only to be overturned after a VAR review. The video‑assistant referee concluded that Haaland had been played on‑side by Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu, yet Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball before it reached the Norwegian forward. The incident raised a series of questions that have yet to receive a full answer.
The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night admitting that a mistake had been made in allowing the goal to stand. Their acknowledgement described the situation as an "error of judgement" but offered only a partial explanation. While they accepted 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 wording leaves the core issue unresolved: why did the VAR overlook the fact that a player standing six yards from the goal line, making a diving header in a crowded six‑yard box, should have been judged as having interfered with play?
In a mid‑game post on X, the Match Centre account summarised the VAR’s reasoning: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernández didn't play the ball." Sky Sports’ live coverage showed the VAR team reviewing the footage to decide whether Fernández had actually made contact with the ball as it travelled across the six‑yard area. The focus on this technicality suggests that the officials may have become distracted by whether Fernández touched the ball, rather than applying the broader principle that a player can be penalised for off‑side even without touching the ball if his position interferes with an opponent’s ability to play. According to Pro Ref, the initial off‑side call was made against Haaland, who was in fact on‑side.
The review then shifted to Fernández, correctly identifying him as off‑side. However, the VAR team appears to have concentrated exclusively on whether Fernández touched the ball, ignoring the more fundamental question of whether his presence altered the goalkeeper’s actions. The VAR was therefore unable to confirm that the goal should have been ruled out for the correct reason – Fernández’s off‑side position – and instead mistakenly focused on Haaland’s alleged off‑side status.
Pro Ref argued that the VAR should have instructed the referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to make a subjective judgment on whether Fernández had impacted play. Such a review would have considered the goalkeeper’s reaction: United’s keeper initially raised his arms in anticipation of a header from Fernández, losing balance before Haaland’s shot arrived.
Even if Fernández never struck the ball, his presence forced the goalkeeper to move, effectively influencing the outcome. Consequently, the goal should have been disallowed regardless of whether the ball was touched. The situation can be summed up as a "yes and no" paradox.
Yes, the off‑side call was initially made against an on‑side player (Haaland), which was correct. No, the goal should still have been cancelled because Fernández’s off‑side position interfered with the goalkeeper’s ability to make a fair save. The correct protocol, had the officials followed the rulebook to the letter, would have been to ask Oliver for an on‑field review after confirming Fernández’s off‑side status. One of the officials, Matt Donohue, served as the VAR for this match.
Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League games as the main referee, he has extensive VAR experience, having overseen 24 matches and acted as Assistant VAR in six more during the 2025/26 season. This season the Premier League also introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology, which generates a precise kick‑point graphic for contentious moments. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed cross‑hairs and drew lines to judge off‑side positions, theoretically reducing human error. Despite the technology, another unresolved issue from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the goal.
Haaland’s strike came at 59 minutes and 24 seconds. After the lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds, yet only five minutes of additional time were announced at the end of the half.
Observers have questioned whether the officials failed to account for the time consumed by the VAR check when calculating the final added‑on time. In summary, the controversy surrounding Haaland’s winning goal stems from a chain of misinterpretations: an initial off‑side call against the wrong player, a VAR focus on an irrelevant technicality, and a failure to invoke an on‑field review that could have clarified the impact of Fernández’s off‑side position.
While the introduction of semi‑automated off‑side tools promises greater accuracy, this incident demonstrates that human judgment remains a critical factor. The Premier League, referees, and VAR officials will likely review this case to refine protocols and ensure that future decisions align more closely with the spirit and letter of the off‑side law.