The winning strike by Erling Haaland in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the way it was adjudicated, and several aspects of the incident remain unclear. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the goal for off‑side, but the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) later reversed that decision, allowing the goal to stand.
The VAR panel concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had played Haaland on‑side, yet they also noted that Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernandez was positioned off‑side when he attempted to make contact with the ball before it reached Haaland. The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL or PGMO) issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake had been made in awarding the goal. Their communication described the incident as an "error of judgement" but only partially explained why the goal was incorrectly allowed. While they admitted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez was off‑side, they added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position." The lingering question, however, is why the VAR failed to appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header on a ball that was already between two opponents, should not have been considered to have influenced the play.
In a mid‑game post on X, the Match Centre account explained the decision by stating, "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernandez didn't play the ball." Sky Sports' live coverage showed replays of the VAR team scrutinising whether Fernandez actually touched the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box. This raises the possibility that the VAR became overly fixated on a technical detail—whether the off‑side player made contact—rather than applying the broader principle that a player can be penalised for off‑side even without touching the ball. The off‑side rule is clear: a player in an off‑side position is considered to have interfered with play if they obstruct an opponent or gain an advantage, regardless of contact.
According to Pro Ref, the first off‑side call was made against Haaland himself, but the review quickly shifted focus to Fernandez, correctly identifying him as off‑side. The problem arose when the VAR team appeared to concentrate solely on whether Fernandez touched the ball, neglecting the fact that his off‑side position alone should have nullified the goal.
In other words, the VAR could not confirm that the goal was correctly ruled out for the right reason; they mistakenly judged the situation based on the wrong premise. Pro Ref suggested that the VAR should have asked the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review, which would have required Oliver to make a subjective assessment of whether Fernandez's presence impacted the play.
Video evidence shows United goalkeeper Andre Martinez reacting to Fernandez's movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing balance just as Haaland struck the ball. Even though Martinez's reaction was triggered by Fernandez's positioning, the goal should have been disallowed irrespective of whether the goalkeeper was distracted, because the off‑side offence was already committed by Fernandez.
This creates a paradox: the off‑side was called against an on‑side player (Haaland) while the real infringement involved Fernandez, meaning the goal should have been ruled out on that basis. The procedural error becomes clearer when considering the chain of decisions. The on‑field assistant referee flagged Haaland for off‑side, prompting a VAR review. The VAR confirmed Haaland was on‑side but then focused on Fernandez, ultimately deciding that Fernandez had not played the ball and therefore did not interfere.
This conclusion ignored the fact that Fernandez's off‑side position alone was sufficient to cancel the goal under the current interpretation of the law. Consequently, the correct course of action would have been to request an on‑field review of the off‑side offence involving Fernandez, not merely to assess whether he touched the ball.
The VAR in charge of the incident was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only officiated four Premier League matches as the main referee, he has extensive VAR experience, having served as the VAR for 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 to aid officials during reviews. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs on the screen to determine off‑side lines, theoretically reducing human error. One additional unanswered question from the derby concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the goal.
Haaland's strike occurred at 59 minutes and 24 seconds into the second half. Following a lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds, yet only five minutes of added time were announced at the end of the match. Critics argue that the time taken for the VAR check should have been reflected in a longer period of stoppage time, suggesting another oversight by the officials.
In summary, the controversy surrounding Haaland's winning goal stems from a cascade of misinterpretations: an initial off‑side flag on the wrong player, a VAR focus on an irrelevant technicality, and a failure to apply the correct procedural remedy. The incident highlights the challenges of integrating new technology with existing officiating protocols and underscores the need for clearer guidance on how VAR should handle off‑side situations where multiple players are involved. As the Premier League continues to refine its VAR processes, this episode will likely serve as a case study for future improvements, ensuring that such high‑stakes decisions are handled with greater consistency and transparency.