The winning strike by Erling Haaland in the recent Manchester derby sparked a heated debate because of the way it was allowed to stand, and several aspects of the incident still lack clear answers. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the goal for offside, but after a VAR review the decision was reversed, and the goal counted.
The VAR panel concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland onside, yet they also noted that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned offside when he attempted to make contact with the ball before it reached Haaland. To fully grasp the situation, it helps to break down the sequence of events and the reasoning offered by the governing bodies. The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) released a statement on Sunday night admitting that a mistake had been made in awarding City’s winning goal.
Their acknowledgement framed the error as an "error of judgement" and provided a partial explanation: the VAR did not correctly assess the likely impact of Fernandez's off‑side position. In other words, while they recognised that Fernandez was offside, they failed to appreciate that his proximity to the ball – six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header – could have influenced the play, even if he did not actually touch the ball. The core of the controversy lies in the interpretation of the offside rule.
The rule states that a player in an offside position is penalised if they become involved in active play, which includes interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage from the ball. In this case, Fernandez was clearly in an offside spot, but the VAR team seemed to focus on whether he physically touched the ball rather than whether his movement or positioning disrupted the goalkeeper, David de Gea, or otherwise affected the play. This narrow focus on a technicality – the act of touching the ball – may have led them to overlook the broader impact Fernandez had on the situation. Match Centre, in a mid‑game post on X, explained that the VAR concluded Fernandez, while offside, did not play the ball.
Sky Sports broadcast replays that showed the VAR officials scrutinising the moment the ball crossed the six‑yard box, trying to determine if Fernandez made contact. This raises the question of whether the VAR became overly fixated on a detail that, under the letter of the law, should not have been decisive, given that a player can be penalised for being offside even without touching the ball. According to Pro Ref, the initial offside call was against Haaland himself, which was later overturned because he was onside.
The review then shifted to Fernandez, correctly identifying his offside position. However, the VAR team apparently lingered on the issue of whether Fernandez touched the ball, rather than concluding that his offside status alone should have nullified the goal.
This misstep meant that the VAR could not properly advise referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, which would have required Oliver to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernandez's presence interfered with play. Video evidence also shows that de Gea reacted to Fernandez’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing balance just as Haaland struck. Even if the goalkeeper’s reaction was partially due to Fernandez’s positioning, the goal should have been disallowed because the offside offence was committed by Fernandez, not Haaland.
In short, the decision was a "yes" for the offside being called on an onside player, but a "no" because the goal itself should have been ruled out on the basis of Fernandez’s offside. The procedural error is clear: because the on‑field decision flagged Haaland, the correct protocol would have been to request an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to decide whether Fernandez’s offside interfered with play.
Instead, the VAR’s focus on a technicality prevented that step. The frustration expressed by fans and pundits is evident in quotes such as, "I think [Fernandez] was offside.
What I can’t understand is 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 people (officials) doing this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable. We have to go home with this injustice." The VAR involved, Matt Donohue, has limited experience as a lead referee in the Premier League – only four matches – but he has served as a VAR in 24 Premier League games and as an assistant VAR in six during the 2025/26 season.
This season the league introduced semi‑automated offside technology, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic to assist officials. This system replaces the older manual method where VAR officials placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine offside positions. While the new technology aims to increase accuracy, the Haaland incident shows that human interpretation remains a critical factor. Another lingering question from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the goal.
Haaland’s strike occurred at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after a lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. Despite this four‑minute pause, the referee only added five minutes of injury time at the end of the half, raising doubts about whether the officials accounted for the VAR delay when calculating added time. In summary, the Haaland goal controversy highlights several systemic issues: the need for clearer guidance on offside impact, better training for VAR officials to avoid over‑emphasising trivial details, and more transparent communication about how stoppage time is calculated after lengthy reviews. As the Premier League continues to refine its technology and procedures, this incident will likely serve as a case study for future improvements.