Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the way it was adjudicated. The goal was first flagged for off‑side on the field, only to be reversed after a VAR review. The Video Assistant Referee panel concluded that Haaland was on‑side thanks to a pass from Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu, yet they also noted that City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland. This nuance has left fans, pundits, and officials scrambling for a clear explanation.
The Professional Game Referees (formerly PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night admitting that an error had been made when the goal was allowed to stand. While they described the incident as an "error of judgement," the statement only partially addressed why the VAR team missed the crucial detail. The officials acknowledged that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernández was off‑side, yet they added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position." The lingering question, therefore, is why the VAR did not appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header, should have been judged as having interfered with play, even if he did not make contact with the ball.
In a mid‑match post on X, the Match Centre account summarized the VAR’s reasoning: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernández didn't play the ball." Sky Sports’ live coverage showed the VAR team scrutinising the replay to see whether Fernández touched the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. This focus on a technicality—whether a player touched the ball—seemed to distract the officials from the broader off‑side rule, which states that a player can be penalised for being off‑side regardless of whether he actually contacts the ball, if his position influences an opponent’s actions. According to Pro Ref, the initial on‑field decision was that Haaland was off‑side, which was later overturned because he was actually on‑side. The review then shifted to Fernández, who was correctly identified as off‑side.
However, the VAR panel appears to have become fixated on whether Fernández touched the ball, rather than on whether his presence obstructed the goalkeeper or otherwise affected the play. The result was a contradictory outcome: the goal was allowed because Haaland was on‑side, even though the off‑side infringement by Fernández should have nullified the goal. Pro Ref argued that the VAR should have asked referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, allowing him to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernández’s position impacted the play.
Replays also show United goalkeeper Andre Martinez reacting to Fernández’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland struck. This suggests that Fernández’s presence already affected the goalkeeper, reinforcing the argument that the goal should have been disallowed irrespective of whether Fernández actually touched the ball. In short, the decision was both "yes" and "no": the off‑side call was correctly applied to an on‑side player (Haaland), but the goal itself should have been ruled out because of Fernández’s off‑side interference.
The procedural error becomes clearer when considering the official protocol. Since the on‑field decision was initially against Haaland, the only correct course—if the VAR process had been followed to the letter—would have been to request an on‑field review by Oliver. Instead, the VAR team seemed to reverse the decision without that step, leading to confusion and criticism. As one frustrated fan expressed: "I think [Fernández] was off‑side.
What I can’t understand are 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.
I want to be calm but it is so hard. Five or six officials making this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable. We have to go home with this injustice." The VAR officer overseeing the incident 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 for 24 Premier League games and as an assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season.
This season, the Premier League introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic to aid officials during reviews. This system replaces the older method where VAR teams manually placed crosshairs and drew lines on the screen to determine off‑side positions.
While the new technology aims to increase accuracy, the Haaland incident shows that human interpretation remains a critical factor. Another unresolved issue from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the match. Haaland’s goal came at 59 minutes and 24 seconds. After the lengthy VAR review, play did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds.
Despite this four‑minute interruption, the referee added only five minutes of injury time at the end of the half. Critics argue that the officials may have overlooked the time consumed by the VAR check when calculating the added‑on time, potentially affecting the flow of the game.
In summary, the controversy stems from a cascade of missteps: an initial off‑side call against Haaland that was overturned, a focus on whether Fernández touched the ball rather than whether he interfered, a failure to request an on‑field review, and possibly an inaccurate calculation of added time. The incident highlights the challenges of integrating new technology with human judgment and underscores the need for clearer protocols to prevent similar errors in future high‑stakes matches. The debate continues, and fans are left hoping that the governing bodies will refine the VAR process, provide better training for officials, and ensure that the spirit of the off‑side law is upheld consistently across all matches.