In the heated atmosphere of the Manchester derby, Erling Haaland found the back of the net in a manner that sparked intense debate and left many observers scratching their heads. The goal, which ultimately gave Manchester City the win, was first flagged as off‑side on the field, only to be overturned after a VAR review. The chain of events that led to the final decision has been dissected by pundits, officials and fans alike, and several key questions remain unanswered.
The initial on‑field call was that Haaland was off‑side, a judgment that would have nullified the strike. However, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) team intervened and concluded that the Norwegian forward was actually on‑side because Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had not impeded him. The twist in the narrative came from the position of Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández, who was standing in an off‑side position as the ball approached Haaland.
The VAR panel determined that Fernández had not played the ball, and therefore his off‑side status should not affect the goal. Professional Game Referees – previously known as PGMOL – later issued a statement acknowledging that a mistake had been made in awarding the goal. They described the incident as an "error of judgement" and admitted that the decision should have been overturned because Fernández was off‑side. Their explanation, however, was only partial.
While they recognised that the VAR failed to appreciate the likely impact of Fernández’s position, they did not fully address why the technology did not register that a player six yards from goal, attempting a diving header, could influence the play even without touching the ball. The match‑day commentary on the official X (formerly Twitter) account of the Match Centre added that the VAR concluded Fernández did not play the ball while in an off‑side position. Replays shown on Sky Sports appeared to focus on whether Fernández made contact with the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. This raised the question of whether the VAR became overly fixated on a technicality – the act of touching the ball – rather than the broader principle of off‑side interference, which the Laws of the Game state can be penalised even if the player does not touch the ball, provided they affect an opponent’s ability to play.
According to the Pro Ref report, the first off‑side flag was correctly raised against Haaland, confirming his on‑side status after review. The attention then shifted to Fernández, who was correctly identified as being in an off‑side position. The controversy lies in the subsequent focus on whether Fernández touched the ball, rather than whether his mere presence disrupted the goalkeeper’s actions. The VAR team did not conclusively rule that the goal should have been disallowed for Fernández’s off‑side, instead mistakenly treating the situation as if the off‑side rule only applied when the player handled the ball.
A proper protocol would have seen referee Michael Oliver called for an on‑field review, allowing him to assess subjectively whether Fernández’s positioning interfered with the play. In the footage, United goalkeeper Andre Martinez initially reacts to Fernández, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing balance just before Haaland’s strike. Even though Martínez was distracted by Fernández’s movement, the off‑side offence was already committed by Fernández, meaning the goal should have been cancelled regardless of whether the goalkeeper was directly impeded.
The situation can be summarised as a "yes and no" paradox: yes, the off‑side flag was incorrectly applied to an on‑side Haaland; no, the goal should still have been disallowed because Fernández was off‑side and his position interfered with the defensive play. Because the on‑field decision targeted Haaland, the correct next step – according to the regulations – would have been to request an on‑field review, not to rely solely on a VAR determination that missed the nuance of the interference. "I think [Fernández] was off‑side. What I can’t understand is the rules.
He was there! I went to him because he was in front of me.
That’s why Haaland was free at the back," said a frustrated official after the match. The sentiment echoed across the league: multiple officials making a clear error in a high‑profile Premier League match is unacceptable, and the incident has sparked calls for clearer guidelines and better training for VAR teams.
The VAR on duty that night was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main referee, his VAR experience is extensive – he served as the VAR for 24 matches and as Assistant VAR for six during the 2025/26 season. This expertise, however, did not prevent the misinterpretation of the off‑side rule in this critical moment.
Adding another layer of complexity, the Premier League this season employs semi‑automated off‑side technology that generates a visual kick‑point graphic for each review. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine off‑side positions. While the technology is designed to increase accuracy, it also introduces new variables that officials must interpret correctly, and in this case, the interpretation fell short. A lingering question from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the goal.
Haaland’s strike occurred at 59 minutes and 24 seconds of the second half. After a prolonged VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds, yet only five minutes of added time were announced at the end of the match. Critics argue that the time taken for the review should have been reflected in the stoppage time, suggesting another oversight by the officials. In summary, the Haaland goal controversy highlights several systemic issues: the need for clearer communication between VAR and on‑field officials, better understanding of the off‑side rule’s application to players who do not touch the ball, and more transparent handling of added time after lengthy reviews.
As the Premier League continues to integrate advanced technology, the incident serves as a cautionary tale that even sophisticated tools cannot replace thorough training and precise decision‑making. The football community will be watching closely to see how the governing bodies respond, hoping for reforms that will prevent similar mistakes in future high‑stakes matches.