Former professional referee chief Howard Webb has openly expressed his disappointment with a recent VAR decision that allowed Erling Haaland’s winning strike in the Manchester derby to stand, despite a clear off‑side infringement by Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernández. Webb argues that the video officials became so fixated on Haaland’s position that they completely overlooked Fernández’s illegal involvement, a lapse he describes as "tunnel vision." According to Webb, the on‑field referee initially flagged Haaland for off‑side, but the VAR review reversed that call, declaring the Norwegian forward on‑side by a margin of just three centimetres. The review team then proceeded to examine the full attacking possession phase (APP) to confirm the decision. While they correctly identified that Haaland was on‑side, they failed to assess the impact of Fernández, who was standing in an off‑side position and actively interfering with the play.
Webb explained to Mic’d Up that the VAR’s focus on Haaland caused them to miss the broader context: "When the VAR starts their check, they see that Haaland is actually on‑side. The VAR gets super‑focused on Haaland, confirms he is on‑side, but then they don’t fully evaluate the entire attacking possession phase. In that moment, they develop tunnel vision.
It is the responsibility of the rest of the VAR team to pull the focus back, but that didn’t happen this time. This goal should have been disallowed." The incident unfolded as Fernández lunged for the ball before Haaland redirected it into the net. Although Fernández never made contact with the ball, his off‑side position obstructed the movements of Manchester United defenders Lisandro Martínez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens.
The VAR officials, after confirming that Fernández did not touch the ball, concluded that there was no off‑side offence. However, under the Laws of the Game, a player can be penalised for off‑side even without touching the ball if they interfere with an opponent’s ability to play the ball. Webb emphasized that Fernández’s actions undeniably impeded Martínez and Lammens, thereby influencing the outcome of the play. In a detailed statement, Webb said, "We felt it was important to acknowledge the error.
Haaland was not off‑side, but Fernández, who was off‑side, almost certainly interfered with the United defence and probably the goalkeeper. I was really disappointed with this outcome; we all were. The officials take personal pride in their work and are now hurting after falling short.
They will not be officiating until after the international break." Webb’s office has reached out to Manchester United to explain the mistake, sharing the relevant audio and video footage. He added, "We want to be transparent and open. We will review the situation to understand which elements of the process broke down, leading to the wrong decision." The Premier League’s match centre on X (formerly Twitter) noted that VAR had determined Fernández did not play the ball, but the broader interpretation of the off‑side rule was ignored. Sky Sports’ Laura Hunter argued that simply admitting the error is insufficient; a full‑scale review is required to address the impact on the clubs and the integrity of the competition.
She pointed out that the VAR team spent nearly three minutes deliberating the goal, a period during which even casual observers could have identified the mistake with a single replay. Critics also questioned why Michael Oliver, the match referee, did not intervene or communicate with his assistants to clarify who was actually flagged off‑side—whether it was Haaland, Fernández, or both. The lack of clear communication contributed to the confusion and ultimately to the incorrect decision. The incident has reignited a broader debate about the reliability of VAR technology.
Some pundits, like Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol, expressed sympathy for the VAR officials, acknowledging that human error is inevitable, especially under the intense pressure of a high‑stakes derby. Solhekol noted, "If you are a VAR in a game as big as the Manchester derby, you really should not be making mistakes of this magnitude. But human beings make mistakes, and on this occasion, two human beings made a big mistake which they will regret for a long time." Nevertheless, many fans and analysts argue that the purpose of VAR is to eliminate such basic errors. If the technology cannot reliably detect an off‑side interference that does not involve a touch, its efficacy is called into question.
The incident serves as a case study for how VAR protocols might be refined: ensuring that the entire attacking possession phase is reviewed comprehensively, that off‑side interference is assessed even without ball contact, and that communication among the VAR team and the on‑field officials is clear and decisive. In summary, Howard Webb’s critique highlights a critical flaw in the current VAR process—a narrow focus on the primary attacker at the expense of evaluating all players involved in the play. The error not only altered the result of a pivotal Manchester derby but also sparked a wider conversation about the future of video‑assisted officiating in football. The incident underscores the need for stricter guidelines, better teamwork among officials, and perhaps a reevaluation of how technology is used to support, rather than replace, human judgment on the pitch.