Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the way it was adjudicated, and several aspects of the incident remain unresolved. Initially, the goal was ruled out for off‑side on the field, only to be reinstated after a VAR review. The VAR panel concluded that Haaland was on‑side after a pass from Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu, but they also noted that City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was in an off‑side position when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland.
The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) confirmed later that evening that a mistake had been made in awarding the goal. Their statement described the incident as an "error of judgement" and offered a limited explanation: the VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of Fernandez’s off‑side position.
While they admitted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez was off‑side, they did not fully explain why the VAR did not treat a player six yards from goal, attempting a diving header, as having interfered with play. Match Centre’s mid‑game post on X summed up the decision by stating that the VAR considered Fernandez to be off‑side but concluded that he did not play the ball. Sky Sports re‑broadcasts showed the VAR team scrutinising whether Fernandez actually made contact with the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box.
This raises the question of whether the officials became overly fixated on a technical detail that, under the off‑side law, is irrelevant if a player in an off‑side position interferes with an opponent’s ability to play the ball. According to Pro Ref, the first off‑side call was made against Haaland, who was correctly judged to be on‑side.
The review then shifted to Fernandez, who was rightly identified as being in an off‑side position. However, the VAR panel appears to have concentrated exclusively on whether Fernandez touched the ball, neglecting the broader question of whether his presence alone constituted interference.
In effect, the VAR could not confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for the correct reason (Fernandez’s off‑side) and instead based the decision on an incorrect premise (a supposed Haaland off‑side). Pro Ref argued that the VAR should have asked referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to make a subjective judgment on whether Fernandez’s positioning impacted the play. Video replays show United goalkeeper David de Gea reacting to Fernandez’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland struck the ball.
Even if de Gea was distracted, the off‑side offence had already occurred because Fernandez was ahead of the ball and the last defender, meaning the goal should have been ruled out irrespective of any goalkeeper reaction. In short, the decision was contradictory: the off‑side was called against an on‑side player (Haaland), yet the goal should have been disallowed because of Fernandez’s off‑side. The correct protocol, had the officials adhered strictly to the guidelines, would have been to request an on‑field review of the off‑side interference rather than rely solely on the VAR’s technical analysis.
One of the VAR officials involved was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main referee, he has extensive VAR experience, having served as the video assistant in 24 Premier League games and as an assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season.
This season the Premier League is trialling semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic for incidents under review. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine off‑side positions, theoretically reducing human error and speeding up decisions. Another lingering question from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the match.
Haaland’s goal was scored at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after a lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. Despite this four‑minute interruption, the referee added only five minutes of extra time at the end of the half, prompting speculation that the officials may have overlooked the VAR review when calculating added time. The controversy underscores broader concerns about consistency and transparency in the use of VAR, especially in high‑stakes matches where a single decision can determine the outcome.
Fans, pundits, and even the officials themselves have expressed frustration, with some describing the error as unacceptable for a competition of the Premier League’s stature. As the league continues to refine its technology and protocols, incidents like this will likely shape future guidelines and training for both on‑field referees and VAR teams.
The incident also highlights the need for clearer communication to the public about how off‑side decisions are made, particularly when a player’s mere presence in an off‑side position can influence the outcome without direct contact with the ball. Greater transparency could help mitigate the confusion and anger that often follow contentious calls.
In summary, Haaland’s goal was awarded after a series of missteps: an initial on‑field off‑side call against the wrong player, a VAR focus on an irrelevant technicality, and a failure to request an on‑field review that might have clarified the situation. While technology aims to reduce such errors, the human element remains critical, and this episode serves as a reminder that even with advanced tools, the interpretation of the laws of the game still relies heavily on the judgment of officials.