The dramatic winner scored by Erling Haaland in the recent Manchester derby was shrouded in controversy, and several unresolved issues still linger around the incident. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the goal as offside, only for the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) to reverse that decision and allow the score to stand. The VAR panel concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland onside, yet they appeared to overlook that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned offside when he tried to make contact with the ball before it reached Haaland. To unpack the situation, it is useful to examine the sequence of events and the statements issued by the governing bodies.
The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL or PGMO) released a notice on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake had been made in awarding City’s winning goal. Their admission described the error as an "error of judgement" and offered a limited explanation: they said the VAR had failed to recognise the likely impact of Fernandez’s off‑side position.
In other words, while they accepted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez was offside, they did not fully explain why the VAR did not appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header, could be deemed to have interfered with play. The most plausible interpretation of the VAR’s reasoning comes from a post on the official Match Centre X account, which stated: "The VAR also deemed that while in an offside position, Fernandez didn't play the ball." This wording suggests that the review team focused narrowly on whether Fernandez actually touched the ball, rather than on the broader off‑side rule, which states that a player can be penalised for being in an offside position even if he does not make contact, provided he interferes with an opponent or gains an advantage.
During the Sky Sports broadcast, replays highlighted the VAR team scrutinising the precise moment the ball crossed the six‑yard box, looking for any sign of Fernandez’s foot or head making contact. The question therefore arises: did the VAR become overly fixated on a technical detail that, under the law, was irrelevant?
The off‑side law is clear that the mere presence of a player in an offside position, who blocks a line of sight or distracts a defender, is sufficient for a sanction, regardless of whether the ball is touched. According to the Pro Ref report, the initial off‑side call was made against Haaland, who was correctly judged to be onside. The review then shifted to Fernandez, correctly identified as being in an offside position. However, the VAR team appears to have incorrectly centred their analysis on whether Fernandez touched the ball, rather than on whether his position interfered with the play.
This misstep meant that the VAR could not definitively confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for the correct reason – Fernandez’s off‑side – and instead incorrectly suggested the decision hinged on Haaland’s off‑side status. The proper protocol, as outlined by Pro Ref, would have been to request an on‑field review by referee Michael Oliver.
In such a review, Oliver would have been asked to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernandez’s presence had any impact on the play, such as obstructing the goalkeeper or influencing the defender’s positioning. The lack of this on‑field review is a critical omission in the decision‑making chain. Video evidence also shows United goalkeeper David de Gea reacting to Fernandez’s movement – raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing balance just as Haaland struck the ball. Even if de Gea was momentarily distracted by Fernandez, the off‑side infringement by Fernandez alone should have nullified the goal, independent of any goalkeeper distraction.
Thus, the goal was effectively disallowed for the wrong reason (a mistaken assessment of Haaland’s position) rather than the correct reason (Fernandez’s off‑side interference). In summary, the situation can be broken down into three key points: (1) the on‑field decision incorrectly flagged Haaland as offside; (2) the VAR correctly identified Fernandez as offside but then focused on an irrelevant technicality; and (3) the failure to initiate an on‑field review prevented a proper subjective assessment of interference.
The net result was that the goal stood when, under the laws, it should have been ruled out. Adding further context, the VAR overseeing the incident was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main official, he possesses extensive VAR experience, having served as the VAR in 24 Premier League games and as an Assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season.
This season, the Premier League has introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic for each review. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs on the screen to determine the exact point of off‑side. While the new technology aims to increase accuracy and speed, the Haaland incident demonstrates that human interpretation remains a critical factor.
One lingering question that has yet to be addressed is whether the officials also neglected to account for the time spent on the VAR review when calculating added‑on time at the end of the half. Haaland’s goal was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds. After a protracted review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds, yet only five minutes of stoppage time were ultimately added. Critics argue that the delay caused by the VAR review should have been reflected in a larger amount of added time, especially given the number of other interruptions that occurred throughout the half.
The broader implications of this controversy touch on the integrity of the VAR system and the need for clearer protocols when multiple off‑side situations arise in quick succession. Fans, analysts, and officials alike are calling for more transparent communication from the governing bodies, as well as a review of the training procedures for VAR officials to ensure that they consistently apply the off‑side law in its entirety, rather than focusing on isolated technicalities. In the aftermath, several voices from the football community have expressed frustration. One Manchester United player was quoted saying, "I think Fernandez was offside.
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 stay calm but it’s 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 incident also reignites the debate about the balance between technology and human judgment in modern football.
While semi‑automated off‑side tools provide precise data, the final decision still rests on the interpretation of the officials, who must assess whether a player in an off‑side position has interfered with an opponent. The Haaland goal serves as a reminder that even with advanced technology, clarity in the application of the laws and consistency in procedural steps are essential to maintain fairness and credibility in the sport. Overall, the controversy surrounding Haaland’s winning goal underscores the complexities of VAR decision‑making, the importance of adhering to established protocols, and the need for ongoing improvements to both technology and officiating standards.
The incident will likely be examined in detail by the Premier League’s officiating committee, with the aim of preventing similar errors in future high‑stakes matches.