Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the recent Manchester derby was shrouded in controversy, leaving fans and pundits alike with a slew of unanswered questions. The goal was initially flagged as off‑side on the field, only to be overturned after a VAR review.
According to the VAR officials, Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, but City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball before it reached the Norwegian forward. The Professional Game Referees (formerly PGMOL) admitted on Sunday night that a mistake had been made when the goal was allowed to stand.
Their statement described the incident as an "error of judgement" and offered a partial rationale: the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of Fernández’s off‑side position. However, the core issue – why the VAR failed to appreciate that a player standing six yards from goal, making a diving header for a ball sandwiched between two opponents, did not influence the play – remains unresolved.
In a mid‑game post on X, Match Centre explained the decision by noting that the VAR concluded Fernández, while off‑side, did not touch the ball. Sky Sports’ coverage showed replays of the VAR team analysing whether Fernández made contact as the ball crossed the six‑yard box. This raises the question of whether the VAR became fixated on a technicality that, under the off‑side law, is irrelevant: a player can be penalised for being off‑side regardless of whether he actually touches the ball. Pro Ref clarified that the original off‑side call was made against Haaland, who was, in fact, onside.
The review then shifted to Fernández, correctly identifying him as off‑side. The problem arose when the VAR team appeared to concentrate solely on whether Fernández touched the ball, rather than assessing the broader impact of his position. Consequently, they could not confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for Fernández’s off‑side – they mistakenly linked the decision to Haaland’s alleged off‑side status. The governing body suggested that the VAR should have asked referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, allowing him to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernández interfered with play.
Video evidence shows United goalkeeper David de Gea reacting to Fernández’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just as Haaland struck the ball. Even though de Gea’s reaction was triggered by Fernández’s presence, the goal should have been ruled out on the basis of Fernández’s off‑side, irrespective of any distraction caused to the goalkeeper.
In short, the decision was contradictory: the off‑side was called against an on‑side player (Haaland), yet the goal should have been cancelled because of Fernández’s off‑side position. According to the protocol, when the on‑field decision is against the scorer, the referee should be instructed to review the incident on the pitch. This step was omitted, leading to the confusion. One of the officials involved, VAR Matt Donohue, has officiated only four Premier League matches as the main referee but has extensive VAR experience, having overseen 24 matches and acted as Assistant VAR in six games during the 2025/26 season.
This season, the Premier League is employing semi‑automated off‑side technology, which generates a kick‑point graphic for reviewed incidents. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine off‑side calls. Another lingering mystery concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the half. Haaland’s goal came at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after a lengthy VAR check, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds.
Despite this four‑minute delay, only five minutes of added time were announced for the half, prompting speculation that officials may have neglected the VAR review when calculating stoppage time. The incident has sparked a broader debate about the consistency and transparency of VAR decisions in the Premier League.
Critics argue that multiple officials making the same mistake in a high‑profile match is unacceptable and undermines confidence in the technology. Former players and managers have voiced frustration, noting that the rules surrounding off‑side and player impact are often misunderstood, even among professionals. In response to the controversy, several clubs have called for a review of the VAR protocol, suggesting clearer guidelines for when an on‑field review should be triggered and how off‑side impact should be assessed. There are also proposals to enhance the semi‑automated system with additional data points, such as player movement trajectories, to better determine whether an off‑side player interferes with play.
As the Premier League moves forward, the Haaland incident will likely serve as a case study for refining VAR procedures and ensuring that future decisions are both accurate and comprehensible to fans, players, and officials alike. The goal’s aftermath underscores the delicate balance between technology and human judgement in modern football, and the need for continual improvement to preserve the integrity of the game.