Former professional referee chief Howard Webb has publicly criticised the VAR team for overlooking Enzo Fernandez's off‑side position during Erling Haaland's decisive strike in the Manchester derby. Webb described the incident as a case of "tunnel vision" that led the video officials to concentrate exclusively on Haaland, while ignoring the impact of Fernandez, who was clearly in an off‑side position and interfered with the defending side.
Webb explained that the on‑field referee initially disallowed the goal because Haaland appeared to be offside. When the VAR review was conducted, the officials determined that Haaland was actually on‑side by a margin of just three centimetres. However, instead of extending the review to the full attacking possession phase (APP) – which would have required examining every player involved in the play – the VAR team fixated on Haaland's position. They confirmed that Haaland had not touched the ball and therefore declared the goal valid, even though Fernandez had dived for the ball from an off‑side spot, obstructing both Lisandro Martinez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens.
Webb told the Mic'd Up podcast: "The on‑field decision was not about Fernandez; it was about Haaland. When the VAR started their check, they saw that Haaland was on‑side by three centimetres. The VAR became super focused on Haaland. He established that Haaland was on‑side, but when he ran through the full APP, he did not truly evaluate the full impact of Fernandez.
In that moment he got tunnel vision, and it was up to the rest of his team to pull him out of that tunnel, which unfortunately did not happen. This goal should have been disallowed." According to the audio and video logs released by the Professional Referees' Organization (PRO), the VAR dialogue went as follows: - Assistant VAR: "Enzo, Enzo." - VAR: "Possible offside." - Assistant VAR: "I'm going to go offside, Haaland." - Referee: "On‑field decision is offside." - VAR: "Checking the on‑field decision of offside against Haaland.
He's tight. He's on‑side, so now we need to check the full attacking possession phase." - VAR: "Haaland's in an on‑side position, but I need to check the full APP. Go back to see if [Iliman] Ndiaye is on‑side when it is flicked. Yes.
Go, go, go, so it should be a goal." - VAR: "No touch there from Enzo Fernandez, confirm no touch. Clear gap.
It's not a touch, is it? Goal." - VAR: "Michael, confirming that you need to change your decision to goal.
Haaland is in an on‑side position. Final decision is goal; check complete." Webb later clarified that while Fernandez did not make contact with the ball, the off‑side law does not require a touch for an offence to be penalised. A player can be penalised for off‑side if his movement or positioning interferes with an opponent, even without touching the ball. In this case, Fernandez's dive forced Martinez to hesitate and prevented Lammens from making a clean save, thereby influencing the outcome of the play.
Webb expressed his disappointment, stating, "We felt it was important that we acknowledged an error in the situation. We know that Erling Haaland was penalised for off‑side and wasn't actually off‑side. We also know that Enzo Fernandez, who was in an off‑side position, almost certainly interfered with the Manchester United defence and probably the goalkeeper.
I was really disappointed with this outcome; we all were. None more than the officials.
They take personal pride in what they do and they are hurting now after falling short in this situation. They will not be officiating until after the international break." PRO has reached out to Manchester United to explain the mistake, sharing the audio and video evidence. Webb said the organization will conduct a thorough review to identify which part of the VAR process failed, noting that "Fernandez doesn't actually touch the ball, so he has not committed what we would call a factual off‑side offence of interfering with play.
But you can still be penalised even if you do not touch the ball. In this situation, as the ball comes across, we see Fernandez dive towards the ball and he gets close to it. That impacts Martinez; he cannot come and clear the ball.
It probably impacts Lammens as well, he cannot dive in the way he would or sets himself for potential contact from Fernandez. It is impacting the defence in a couple of ways as a result of the actions he makes in the off‑side position." The incident sparked strong reactions from the media. Sky Sports' Laura Hunter argued that simply admitting the mistake is not enough, calling for a full‑scale review of the VAR protocol, saying, "Pro Ref should not get a pardon for simply admitting their mistake on this one.
A full‑scale review into how it is what they owe the players and clubs involved given it determined the outcome of the game. VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernandez didn't play the ball, which is what the Premier League's match centre posted on X in real time. The off‑side rule appears to have been forgotten here, or at least the full extent of it.
VAR did confirm 'no touch' by Fernandez, but failed to recognise he was live in the move. That element is not subjective. The Man City midfielder clearly impacts both Lisandro Martinez and Senne Lammens and yet neither are mentioned." Sky Sports News' Kaveh Solhekol offered a more sympathetic view, acknowledging the human element: "I do have an element of sympathy for the VAR and his assistant – they made a mistake. A lot of football fans, particularly Man Utd supporters, will feel it is an unforgivable mistake.
If you are a VAR and officiating a game as big as the Manchester derby, you really should not be making mistakes of this magnitude. But having said that, human beings are human beings.
No one is hurting more than the VAR and his assistant. I imagine they've had sleepless nights over this and are replaying what happened over and over again for weeks and months to come. Human beings make mistakes and on this occasion, two human beings made a really big mistake which I'm sure they're going to regret for a long time." The controversy raises broader questions about the reliability of video‑assisted officiating. Critics argue that if sophisticated technology cannot consistently apply the basic off‑side rule, its overall value is questionable.
Supporters counter that the technology still reduces many errors, but acknowledge that continuous training and clearer protocols are needed to avoid tunnel‑vision incidents like this one. In summary, Howard Webb's comments highlight a clear procedural failure: the VAR team focused narrowly on Haaland's position, missed Fernandez's off‑side interference, and consequently allowed a goal that should have been disallowed. The incident has prompted calls for a comprehensive review of VAR operations, greater transparency with clubs, and perhaps a re‑examination of how the off‑side law is interpreted in real time.
The fallout will likely influence how VAR teams are trained and how accountability is enforced in future high‑stakes matches.