Howard Webb, the chief executive of the Professional Referees Organization, expressed strong disappointment after the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) missed the off‑side infringement by Enzo Fernández that should have nullified Erling Haaland's decisive goal in the Manchester derby. Webb explained that the VAR team became overly fixated on Haaland's position, a phenomenon he described as "tunnel vision," which caused them to overlook Fernández's impact from an illegal spot. The sequence began with Haaland's strike being initially flagged off‑side by the on‑field officials, prompting a review.
When the VAR checked the footage, they concluded that Haaland was, in fact, on‑side by a narrow margin of three centimetres. However, the review failed to consider that Fernández, who was standing well ahead of the defensive line, had dived for the ball and obstructed the movements of both Lisandro Martínez and Manchester United goalkeeper Senne Lammens. Although Fernández never made contact with the ball, the laws of the game state that a player can be penalised for off‑side interference even without touching the ball. By ignoring this nuance, the VAR allowed a goal that should have been disallowed.
In an interview with Mic'd Up, Webb said, "The on‑field decision was not about Fernández; it was about Haaland. When the VAR started their check they saw Haaland was on‑side, but they became so focused on confirming his position that they neglected the full attacking possession phase (APP). The assistant VAR should have pulled the main VAR out of that tunnel vision, but that did not happen.
This goal should have been ruled out." Webb went on to detail the procedural breakdown. After confirming Haaland's on‑side status, the VAR team proceeded to verify that Fernández had not touched the ball—a true statement—but they missed the critical fact that his off‑side positioning interfered with the defence. According to the off‑side law, a player in an off‑side position who "gains an advantage" by obstructing an opponent, even without ball contact, commits an offence. Fernández's dive forced Martínez to hesitate and prevented Lammens from making a clean dive, effectively altering the defensive response.
Webb added, "We felt it was essential to acknowledge the error publicly. Haaland was not off‑side, but Fernández was, and his actions almost certainly affected the United back line and the goalkeeper. The officials are deeply disappointed; they take great pride in their work and are now facing a period of reflection.
They will not officiate again until after the international break." The Professional Referees Organization has already contacted Manchester United to explain the mistake and shared the relevant audio and video evidence. Webb said the organization will conduct a thorough review to pinpoint exactly where the process failed, emphasizing transparency and accountability.
He clarified that while Fernández did not touch the ball, the off‑side rule does not require contact for a penalty; the mere act of interfering with an opponent's ability to play the ball is sufficient for a sanction. The incident sparked a wave of commentary from the media.
Sky Sports' Laura Hunter argued that merely admitting the mistake is not enough; a comprehensive investigation is required to restore confidence in VAR. She noted that the Premier League's match centre tweet claimed Fernández "didn't play the ball" and suggested the officials had forgotten the broader scope of the off‑side rule.
Hunter questioned whether the referee, Michael Oliver, communicated with his linesmen about who was actually flagged off‑side—Haaland, Fernández, or both. Kaveh Solhekol of Sky Sports News offered a more sympathetic view, acknowledging the human element in officiating.
He said, "I have sympathy for the VAR and his assistant; they made a mistake that many Manchester United fans will find unforgivable. But human beings make errors, and this will likely haunt them for a long time." The episode raises larger questions about the reliability of technology in football.
Critics argue that if sophisticated video review systems cannot catch a clear off‑side interference, the justification for their use becomes tenuous. Supporters, however, maintain that VAR still reduces many glaring errors, and that continual refinement of protocols can mitigate future oversights. In summary, the VAR team correctly identified Haaland as on‑side but failed to apply the full off‑side law regarding Fernández's obstruction. Webb's condemnation of the tunnel‑vision approach underscores the need for VAR officials to assess the entire attacking possession phase, not just the striker's position.
The Professional Referees Organization's pledge to review the incident and communicate openly with the clubs involved aims to rebuild trust, but the broader debate about VAR's efficacy in high‑stakes matches like the Manchester derby is likely to continue.