Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the recent Manchester derby has sparked a heated debate due to the unusual circumstances surrounding its validation. The goal was first flagged as off‑side on the field, only to be reversed after a review by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) team. The VAR concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, yet the decision ignored the fact that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland.
To unpack the incident, it is helpful to examine the sequence of events and the subsequent statements from the officials involved. The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) publicly admitted on Sunday night that an error had been made in awarding City’s winning goal. Their press release described the situation as an "error of judgement" but offered only a partial explanation. While they conceded that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernández was off‑side, they added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position." This phrasing raises a crucial question: why did the VAR fail to appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header, was in a position to affect the play, even if he did not make contact with the ball?
The official Match Centre account posted on X (formerly Twitter) after the match stated: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernández didn't play the ball." Sky Sports’ coverage showed replays of the VAR team examining whether Fernández had touched the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. This focus on a technicality—whether Fernández made contact—seems to have distracted the VAR from the broader off‑side rule, which does not require a player to touch the ball to be penalised. The rule simply states that a player in an off‑side position who becomes involved in active play must be judged as having interfered, obstructed, or gained an advantage.
According to Pro Ref, the initial off‑side call was made against Haaland himself, but the review quickly shifted to Fernández, who was correctly identified as off‑side. The problem arose when the VAR team apparently fixated on whether Fernández had touched the ball, rather than assessing his overall impact on the play. Consequently, the VAR could not confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for the correct reason—Fernández’s off‑side position—but instead left the decision ambiguous. Pro Ref argued that the VAR should have instructed the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to make a subjective judgment on whether Fernández interfered with the goalkeeper’s line of sight or movement.
Indeed, replays show United goalkeeper Andre‑Martin Kemp (often referred to as Martinez in reports) reacting to Fernández’s presence, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing balance just before Haaland’s strike. Even if the goalkeeper had not been directly distracted, Fernández’s off‑side position alone should have nullified the goal under the existing law. This dual layer of error—first an incorrect off‑side call against Haaland, then a misapplied focus on Fernández’s touch—means the goal was effectively awarded for the wrong reason. The official’s comments also highlighted the procedural gap: because the on‑field decision was initially against Haaland, the only appropriate course—if the VAR protocol had been followed precisely—would have been to request an on‑field review.
Instead, the VAR’s partial correction created a confusing situation where the goal stood despite an acknowledged off‑side infraction. Adding to the complexity, the VAR for the match, Matt Donohue, has limited experience as a lead referee in the Premier League, having overseen only four top‑flight games. However, his VAR credentials are more extensive; in the 2025/26 season he served as VAR for 24 Premier League fixtures and assisted in six others.
This blend of limited on‑field exposure and substantial VAR experience may have contributed to the procedural misstep. The Premier League’s adoption of semi‑automated off‑side technology this season also played a role.
The new system generates a kick‑point graphic that automatically highlights the exact moment a ball is played, aiming to reduce human error. Previously, VAR officials manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine off‑side positions, a process prone to inconsistencies. While the technology is designed to increase accuracy, its integration into the decision‑making workflow is still evolving, and in this case it appears the human element—specifically the interpretation of whether Fernández impacted play—overrode the automated data.
Another lingering question concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the lengthy VAR review. Haaland’s goal was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, but play did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds, a delay of nearly four minutes. Despite this, the referee added only five minutes of extra time at the end of the half. Critics argue that the time taken for the VAR check should have been reflected in the added‑on time, especially given the numerous other interruptions throughout the half.
In summary, the controversy stems from a cascade of errors: an initial off‑side call against an on‑side Haaland, a subsequent focus on whether an off‑side Fernández touched the ball, and a failure to request an on‑field review that could have clarified the situation. The incident underscores the challenges of integrating new technology with established officiating protocols and highlights the need for clearer guidelines when multiple off‑side players are involved in a single play. As the Premier League continues to refine its VAR procedures and the semi‑automated off‑side system, stakeholders hope that such ambiguities will be minimized, ensuring that future matches are decided by the players on the pitch rather than by procedural oversights.