The drama surrounding Erling Haaland's winning strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday has continued to spark debate, largely because the goal was awarded under contentious circumstances. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the effort as offside, only for the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) to overturn the decision and allow the goal to stand.
The VAR panel concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, but the situation was complicated by the position of Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez, who was clearly in an offside spot when he attempted to play the ball before it reached the Norwegian forward. To understand why the decision was later described as a mistake, it helps to trace the sequence of events step by step. First, the assistant referee raised the flag for offside against Haaland.
The referee consulted the VAR, and after a brief review the on‑field decision was reversed, with the VAR announcing that Haaland was onside. The key piece of evidence they focused on was the involvement of Fernandez. Although Fernandez was indeed standing in an offside position, the VAR officials appeared to centre their analysis on whether he actually made contact with the ball, rather than on whether his presence interfered with any opponent.
Professional Game Referees – formerly known as the PGMOL – issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that an "error of judgement" had been made when the goal was allowed. Their explanation, however, was only partial.
They admitted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez was offside, but they added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position." In other words, the VAR team recognised Fernandez’s offside status but failed to appreciate that his proximity to the goal and his attempted header could have affected the goalkeeper’s reaction, even if he did not actually touch the ball. The offside rule, as codified by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), states that a player is penalised for being offside if, at the moment the ball is played by a teammate, he is nearer to the opponent’s goal line than both the ball and the second‑last defender, and he becomes involved in active play. "Active play" includes interfering with an opponent, gaining an advantage, or making a clear attempt to play the ball.
In this case, Fernandez was six yards from the goal line, directly in front of United goalkeeper Andre Martinez, and he leapt for a diving header as the ball dropped into the six‑yard box. Even though the ball ultimately reached Haaland, Fernandez’s movement forced Martinez to raise his arms, shift his balance, and anticipate a header that never materialised. That reaction, in itself, constitutes interference with an opponent, which should have been enough to nullify the goal.
During Sky Sports' coverage, replays showed the VAR team scrutinising the exact moment the ball crossed the six‑yard line, trying to determine whether Fernandez made any contact. This focus on a technicality – whether a player touched the ball – may have distracted the officials from the broader principle that a player in an offside position can affect the outcome without touching the ball. The VAR’s narrow interpretation led to a situation where they correctly identified Fernandez as offside but then incorrectly concluded that his lack of contact meant the goal could stand.
Pro Ref’s analysis suggests that the correct protocol would have been to ask the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review. Oliver would have been tasked with making a subjective judgment about whether Fernandez’s presence interfered with Martinez’s ability to make a save.
Such a review could have resulted in the goal being disallowed on the basis of interference, rather than on the mistaken premise that Haaland himself was offside. Adding another layer of complexity, the timing of the goal and the subsequent restart raised further questions. Haaland’s strike was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds of play. After a lengthy VAR review, play did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds, meaning there was a nearly four‑minute interruption.
Yet, the referee added only five minutes of stoppage time at the end of the half, despite multiple other delays throughout the period. Critics argue that the officials may have inadvertently omitted the time consumed by the VAR check when calculating added time, effectively shortening the half for the benefit of the attacking side. The VAR official responsible for the decision was Matt Donohue.
Although Donohue has only officiated four Premier League matches as the lead referee, he has extensive experience as a VAR, having overseen 24 Premier League games and served as an Assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season. His background suggests a high level of competence, yet the error underscores how even seasoned officials can misinterpret the nuances of the offside law, especially when new technology is involved.
This season, the Premier League has introduced semi‑automated offside technology, which provides a visual "kick‑point" graphic to assist officials in making faster, more accurate calls. Unlike the previous manual method, where VAR analysts placed crosshairs on the screen to determine the exact moment of the pass, the new system automatically generates a line indicating the ball’s position at the moment it was played.
While this technology aims to reduce human error, the Haaland incident demonstrates that the interpretation of the data remains a human responsibility. If the officials focus solely on whether a player touched the ball, they may overlook the broader context of interference. In summary, the controversy stems from several intertwined factors: a misapplied offside rule, an over‑emphasis on a technical detail rather than the spirit of the law, a possible miscalculation of added time, and the challenges of integrating new technology into a fast‑paced game.
The Professional Game Referees have admitted the mistake, but the incident will likely fuel ongoing discussions about how to improve VAR protocols, clarify the definition of "interfering with an opponent," and ensure that the time‑keeping aspect of the game remains transparent. Fans, pundits, and officials alike are left with a clear takeaway: the offside rule is not merely about a player's position relative to the ball, but also about the impact that position has on the opponent's ability to play.
Future training for VAR teams will need to emphasise this holistic view, ensuring that decisions are based on the full range of possibilities rather than a single, narrow metric. Until such reforms are implemented, similar controversies may continue to arise, reminding everyone that even the most sophisticated technology cannot replace the need for clear, consistent human judgment on the pitch.