Howard Webb, the chief executive of the professional refereeing body, has publicly criticised the VAR operation that allowed Erling Haaland's decisive strike in the Manchester derby to stand. According to Webb, the video officials suffered from "tunnel vision" that caused them to overlook the off‑side position of Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernandez, whose involvement should have nullified the goal. Webb expressed deep disappointment with the final decision. The goal was initially disallowed on the pitch because Haaland appeared to be offside.
After a VAR review, officials concluded that Haaland was actually onside by a margin of three centimetres, and they therefore awarded the goal. However, the review failed to consider that Fernandez, who was standing in an off‑side position, had dived toward the ball and interfered with the defensive actions of Lisandro Martinez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens. Even though Fernandez did not touch the ball, the laws of the game state that a player can be penalised for off‑side interference without making contact.
Webb argued that the VAR team became fixated on confirming Haaland’s on‑side status and neglected to assess the full attacking possession phase (APP), which includes any impact from off‑side players. In an interview with Mic'd Up, Webb explained the sequence of events in detail: "The on‑field decision was not about Fernandez; it was about Haaland.
When the VAR started its check, they saw that Haaland was onside by a few centimetres. The VAR then became hyper‑focused on Haaland and, after confirming his position, they ran the full APP but did not truly evaluate Fernandez’s effect on the play. In that moment the VAR suffered tunnel vision, and the rest of the team failed to pull him out of it. The goal should have been disallowed." Webb also highlighted the procedural shortcomings that led to the mistake.
He noted that the assistant VAR initially flagged a possible off‑side, but after confirming that Haaland was onside, the officials declared "no touch" from Fernandez and proceeded to award the goal. The audio and video feed showed Fernandez lunging for the ball, obstructing Martinez’s attempt to clear and limiting Lammens’ ability to dive for a potential save. These actions altered the defensive dynamics and should have been recorded as an off‑side infringement under the current interpretation of the law. Following the incident, Webb’s organisation reached out to Manchester United to acknowledge the error, a step that is standard practice when such high‑profile mistakes occur.
Webb said, "We have played the footage and audio to the club so they understand exactly what happened. We will conduct a thorough review to identify which part of the VAR process broke down, because the outcome was clearly wrong." He further clarified a subtle point of the off‑side rule: "Fernandez didn’t actually touch the ball, so he did not commit a factual off‑side offence of playing the ball. However, a player can still be penalised for off‑side if he interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball. In this case, his dive impeded Martinez and likely affected Lammens’ positioning.
That interference is enough to deem the goal illegal." The reaction from the media was swift and critical. Sky Sports’ Laura Hunter argued that merely admitting the mistake is insufficient, calling for a comprehensive review of the VAR protocol and suggesting that the governing bodies owe clubs and players a full explanation when a decision changes the result of a match.
She pointed out that the Premier League’s match centre tweet claimed that "VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Enzo Fernandez didn’t play the ball," effectively ignoring the interference clause of the law. Hunter questioned why the video officials spent nearly three minutes deliberating a goal that could have been ruled out with a single replay, and she raised broader concerns about the reliability of forensic technology in football officiating.
Sky Sports News correspondent Kaveh Solhekol offered a more empathetic perspective, acknowledging that the VAR and his assistant are human and will likely suffer sleepless nights replaying the incident. He noted that while fans, especially Manchester United supporters, may view the error as unforgivable, the mistake underscores the fallibility inherent in any human‑run system, even one augmented by video technology. Webb concluded by stating that the officials involved will not be assigned to matches until after the international break, giving them time to reflect and receive additional training.
He reiterated the organisation’s commitment to transparency, saying, "We want to be open about what went wrong, and we will use this as a learning opportunity to improve the VAR process for future games." The controversy reignited the ongoing debate about VAR’s role in the Premier League. Critics argue that if a sophisticated video system cannot correctly apply a basic off‑side rule, its overall value is questionable. Proponents, however, maintain that the technology still reduces clear errors and that occasional high‑profile mistakes are an acceptable trade‑off for the overall improvement in decision‑making accuracy. In summary, Howard Webb’s post‑match comments highlight a clear case of tunnel vision within the VAR team, which led to the omission of Enzo Fernandez’s off‑side interference and the wrongful validation of Haaland’s winning goal.
The incident has prompted calls for procedural reforms, increased accountability, and a reassessment of how VAR officials conduct the full attacking possession phase to ensure that every relevant player is considered before a final decision is rendered.