The winning strike by Erling Haaland in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the unusual circumstances surrounding its validation, and several aspects of the incident remain unresolved. Initially, the on‑field officials flagged the goal as offside, but the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) subsequently overturned that decision, allowing the goal to stand. 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 help readers grasp the full picture, we will examine the most pressing questions that have emerged from this episode.
Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake was made in awarding City’s winning goal. While they admitted an "error of judgement," their explanation only addressed part of the problem – namely, that the VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of Fernandez's off‑side position. The statement stopped short of answering 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 though he did not actually touch the ball.
In a mid‑match post on X (formerly Twitter), the Match Centre account explained the decision by saying, "The VAR also deemed that while in an offside position, Fernandez didn't play the ball." Sky Sports’ broadcast showed replays of the VAR team seemingly concentrating on whether Fernandez made contact as the ball crossed the six‑yard box. This raises the question of whether the VAR became fixated on a technicality that, under the offside law, should not have mattered – the law states that a player can be penalised for offside regardless of whether he touches the ball, provided he influences an opponent’s ability to play the ball. According to Pro Ref, the first offside call was made against Haaland, but the review quickly shifted to Fernandez, who was correctly identified as being in an offside position.
The controversy stems from the VAR team’s subsequent, and arguably erroneous, focus on whether Fernandez touched the ball. They failed to confirm that the goal should have been disallowed on the basis of Fernandez's offside, instead mistakenly treating the situation as if Haaland himself had been offside. Pro Ref therefore suggested that the VAR should have asked the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernandez had impacted play. Replays also reveal that United goalkeeper Andre Martinez reacted to Fernandez’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland struck.
Even though Martinez’s reaction was triggered by Fernandez’s presence, the goal should have been ruled out because Fernandez was already offside, irrespective of whether Martinez was distracted. This creates a paradox: the offside was correctly called against an on‑side player (Haaland), but the goal should still have been disallowed because of Fernandez’s infringement. In practical terms, the correct procedure would have been to maintain the original on‑field decision against Haaland and then request an on‑field review to assess Fernandez’s influence. Since that step was omitted, the decision chain broke down, leading to the controversial outcome.
"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," lamented a frustrated observer, echoing the sentiment shared by many fans and pundits. The VAR on duty that day was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has officiated only four Premier League matches as the main referee, he brings extensive VAR experience, having served as the VAR for 24 Premier League games and as an Assistant VAR for six matches in the 2025/26 season.
This season the Premier League introduced semi‑automated offside technology, which generates a kick‑point graphic for incidents under review. This system differs from the previous manual method, where VAR officials placed crosshairs on the screen to determine the exact point of offside. While the new technology aims to increase accuracy and speed, the Haaland incident demonstrates that human interpretation remains a critical factor. Another lingering question concerns the amount of added time after the goal.
Haaland scored at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after a lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. Despite this four‑minute interruption, the referee added only five minutes of stoppage time at the end of the half, prompting speculation that the officials may have overlooked the time consumed by the VAR check when calculating the final added minutes.
In summary, the controversy revolves around three core issues: the VAR’s misinterpretation of the offside rule concerning Fernandez’s impact, the failure to follow the proper protocol of an on‑field review, and the seemingly insufficient amount of added time after a prolonged review. The incident highlights the challenges of integrating advanced technology with human decision‑making in high‑stakes matches.
As the league continues to refine its VAR procedures and offside technology, stakeholders hope that such ambiguities will be reduced, ensuring that future matches are decided on the field rather than in the video room. Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m!
Enter for free.