In the Manchester derby on Sunday, Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike sparked a heated debate because of the way the goal was adjudicated. The initial on‑field call ruled the effort out for offside, only for the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) to overturn the decision moments later. The controversy stems from a complex chain of judgments involving both Haaland and Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu, as well as City midfielder Enzo Fernandez, who was positioned offside at the moment the ball was played. In this analysis we will unpack the sequence of events, examine the statements from the professional refereeing body, and explore why the VAR process failed to produce a clear, consistent outcome.
The incident began when Haaland received a pass inside the six‑yard box and headed the ball past United goalkeeper David de Gea. The on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, initially signalled that Haaland was offside, a decision that was quickly challenged by the VAR team. After a brief review, the VAR concluded that Haaland himself was onside because the ball had been played by Dorgu, who was in a legal position. However, the review also highlighted that Enzo Fernandez, who was standing well ahead of the ball, was in an offside position and appeared to attempt to play the ball before Haaland made contact.
Professional Game Referees – formerly known as PGMOL – issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake had been made in awarding the goal. Their admission was qualified: they called it an "error of judgement" and explained that the VAR had not properly considered the likely impact of Fernandez’s off‑side position.
The statement stopped short of a full technical breakdown, leaving many observers to wonder why the VAR did not apply the off‑side rule more rigorously. According to the law, a player in an off‑side position can be penalised even if he does not touch the ball, provided he interferes with an opponent or gains an advantage from his position. In this case, Fernandez was six yards from the goal line, poised to head the ball, and his movement forced de Gea to adjust his balance, arguably influencing the goalkeeper’s reaction. Match Centre’s post‑game explanation on X (formerly Twitter) echoed the same line of reasoning: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernandez didn’t play the ball." This wording suggests that the VAR team focused on a technicality – whether Fernandez actually made contact – rather than the broader principle of interference.
Sky Sports’ coverage showed the VAR analysts scrutinising the footage for any sign of a touch, a process that seemed to distract them from the more fundamental question of whether Fernandez’s presence disrupted the play. The off‑side rule is clear that a player can be penalised for obstructing an opponent’s line of sight or movement, even without touching the ball, and many pundits argued that this aspect was overlooked.
Pro Ref clarified that the initial off‑side call against Haaland was correct – he was onside – and that the subsequent review correctly identified Fernandez as off‑side. However, the team then appeared to become fixated on the question of a touch, which led to the erroneous conclusion that the goal could stand. In effect, the VAR failed to confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for the proper reason – Fernandez’s off‑side interference – and instead left the decision hanging on an incomplete analysis.
The governing body later suggested that the VAR should have asked Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, allowing the referee to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernandez had impacted the play. Such a review would have likely resulted in the goal being ruled out, given the visual evidence of de Gea’s premature reaction to Fernandez’s movement. Video replays also show de Gea raising his arms in anticipation of a header from Fernandez, losing his balance just before Haaland’s strike. Even if Fernandez never actually struck the ball, his positioning forced the goalkeeper to commit early, which is precisely the type of interference the off‑side rule is designed to punish.
This nuance was lost in the VAR’s narrow focus on a potential touch, leading to the controversial overturn. The situation raises broader questions about the consistency of VAR decisions. If a player in an off‑side position can affect the outcome without touching the ball, why did the VAR not apply that principle here? Some commentators suggested that the VAR team may have been distracted by the technical detail of a touch, a detail that, while relevant in some scenarios, does not override the primary consideration of interference.
Others argued that the semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a kick‑point graphic, may have contributed to the confusion. This technology, introduced this season, replaces the manual cross‑hair method and is intended to increase precision, but it also adds a layer of data that officials must interpret quickly. Matt Donohue served as the VAR for the match.
Although he has limited experience as a lead referee in the Premier League – only four matches to date – he has acted as a VAR in 24 Premier League games and six as an assistant VAR during the 2025/26 season. His extensive exposure to VAR duties suggests familiarity with the system, yet the error indicates that even seasoned officials can misapply the guidelines when under pressure. Another lingering issue from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the half. 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, only five minutes of added time were displayed at the end of the half, raising doubts about whether the officials accounted for the VAR delay when calculating stoppage time. This oversight, if confirmed, would further erode confidence in the consistency of officiating.
In summary, the chain of events that led to Haaland’s goal being allowed can be broken down into several key failures: an initial off‑side call that was correctly overturned for Haaland, a subsequent focus on whether Fernandez touched the ball rather than whether he interfered, and a missed opportunity to request an on‑field review that could have clarified the situation. The professional refereeing body has admitted the mistake but has not provided a comprehensive technical explanation, leaving fans and analysts to speculate about the underlying causes. The incident highlights the challenges of applying VAR technology consistently, especially when new semi‑automated off‑side tools are introduced.
It also underscores the importance of clear communication between the VAR team and the on‑field referee, ensuring that any potential off‑side interference is assessed holistically rather than reduced to a single technical detail. As the Premier League continues to refine its officiating protocols, this episode will likely serve as a case study for improving VAR decision‑making and restoring trust among supporters.