Howard Webb, the chief executive of the Professional Referees’ Organization, has openly expressed his disappointment with the VAR decision that allowed Erling Haaland’s decisive strike in the Manchester derby to stand. According to Webb, the video officials suffered from a kind of "tunnel vision" that caused them to overlook the off‑side position and subsequent interference of Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernández. Webb explained that the on‑field referee initially flagged Haaland for off‑side, which would have nullified the goal.
However, after a VAR review, the officials concluded that Haaland was actually on‑side by a margin of three centimetres. The focus of the review then shifted entirely to Haaland’s positioning, and the officials confirmed that he had not touched the ball. This narrow concentration meant that they failed to assess the broader attacking possession phase (APP), which includes any players who might be influencing the play from an off‑side position. Fernández had dived for the ball just before Haaland steered it into the net.
Although he never made contact with the ball itself, his movement in an off‑side position impeded the ability of Manchester United defender Lisandro Martínez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens to react properly. The off‑side rule, as clarified by the Laws of the Game, states that a player can be penalised for off‑side even if they do not touch the ball, provided they interfere with an opponent’s ability to play the ball.
In this case, Fernández’s presence disrupted the defensive line and the goalkeeper’s positioning, which should have been enough to disallow the goal. Webb described the situation to the Mic’d Up podcast, saying, "The on‑field decision was not about Fernández; it was about Haaland. When the VAR started their check, they saw that Haaland was on‑side. The VAR became fixated on that fact and did not fully evaluate the impact of Fernández’s off‑side position.
In that moment, the VAR suffered tunnel vision, and the rest of the VAR team did not intervene to pull him out of it. This goal should have been disallowed." The transcript of the VAR conversation, as released by the league, shows a series of rapid checks that illustrate the narrow scope of the review. After confirming Haaland’s on‑side status, the officials asked, "No touch there from Enzo Fernández?
Confirm no touch." The answer was affirmative, and the decision was changed to a goal. What was missed, however, was the crucial question of whether Fernández’s off‑side positioning constituted interference with play—a question that the officials never asked. Webb’s office has since reached out to Manchester United to acknowledge the error, emphasizing the organization’s commitment to transparency.
He noted that the VAR team will not be assigned to any matches until after the international break, giving them time to reflect on the mistake and undergo further training. Webb added, "We have played the audio and video to the club so they understand exactly what happened.
We will review every element of the process to identify where it broke down and ensure it does not happen again." In his detailed statement, Webb clarified a common misconception: while Fernández did not physically touch the ball, the off‑side law does not require contact for a player to be penalised. The law states that a player in an off‑side position who "interferes with an opponent"—by obstructing vision, movement, or the ability to play the ball—should be flagged. In this instance, Fernández’s dive forced Martínez to hesitate and prevented Lammens from positioning himself for a potential save.
Both actions altered the natural course of the play, satisfying the criteria for off‑side interference. The incident sparked a flurry of reactions from pundits and former officials. Sky Sports’ Laura Hunter argued that simply admitting the mistake is insufficient; she called for a full‑scale review of the VAR protocol, emphasizing that the error directly influenced the match outcome. Hunter pointed out that the Premier League’s match centre tweet claimed Fernández "didn't play the ball," but ignored the broader definition of interference.
She questioned whether the technology, designed to eliminate clear errors, is being applied correctly if such a fundamental mistake can still occur. Former referee Michael Oliver was also mentioned in the debate, though he did not publicly comment on the specific incident.
Critics wondered whether Oliver, or any senior official, had communicated with the linesmen to confirm who was actually flagged off‑side—whether it was Haaland, Fernández, or both. A thorough chronological analysis, applying the correct laws, would have likely resulted in the goal being disallowed solely on the basis of Fernández’s off‑side interference.
Sky Sports News contributor Kaveh Solhekol offered a more sympathetic perspective, acknowledging the human element behind the error. He noted that VAR officials are under immense pressure, especially in high‑stakes matches like the Manchester derby, and that mistakes of this magnitude are painful for the officials involved. Solhekol remarked, "Human beings make mistakes, and on this occasion two humans made a very big mistake that they will regret for a long time." The broader implications of this incident raise questions about the future of VAR in elite football. If a technology meant to provide definitive answers can still miss a clear off‑side interference, stakeholders must reconsider how the system is operated, how much time is allocated for each review, and whether additional checks—such as a mandatory secondary review for potential off‑side interference—should be instituted.
In summary, Howard Webb’s candid assessment highlights a critical flaw in the current VAR process: an over‑reliance on a single focal point—whether a player is on‑side—without a holistic view of the entire attacking phase. The failure to recognize Enzo Fernández’s off‑side interference allowed a goal that, by the letter of the law, should have been disallowed.
The incident has prompted calls for greater accountability, improved training for VAR officials, and possibly a redesign of the review protocol to ensure that all aspects of the off‑side rule are considered in real time. The football community will be watching closely as the Professional Referees’ Organization implements the lessons learned from this high‑profile error.