We know Haaland's goal was a mistake – but why did it happen?

Erling Haaland’s decisive strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday was surrounded by controversy, and several unanswered questions still linger. The goal was first ruled out for off‑side on the field, only to be reinstated after a VAR review. According to the VAR officials, Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu kept Haaland onside, while Manchester City midfielder Enzo Fernández was in an off‑side position when he attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland.

In this article we examine the main issues that arose from that incident, the statements made by the officials, and the broader implications for the use of technology in the Premier League. **What the officials said** 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. They described the incident as an "error of judgement" and offered a partial explanation: the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of Fernández’s off‑side position. In other words, the review team focused on whether Fernández touched the ball rather than on whether his position interfered with play.

The statement stopped short of answering the more fundamental question: why did the VAR overlook the fact that a player standing six yards from the goal, attempting a diving header, should have been judged to have interfered with the goalkeeper’s actions? The off‑side rule states that a player can be penalised even if he does not touch the ball, provided he gains an advantage or obstructs an opponent. The VAR’s narrow focus on a technicality appears to have ignored this principle.

**Match Centre’s explanation** In a mid‑game post on X, Match Centre wrote: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernández didn’t play the ball." Sky Sports replayed the VAR screen, showing the officials scrutinising whether Fernández made contact as the ball crossed the six‑yard box. This raises the possibility that the VAR became fixated on a detail that, under the law, should not have mattered. **The sequence of the review** According to Pro Ref, the initial off‑side call was made against Haaland, who was correctly judged to be on‑side. The review then shifted to Fernández, who was correctly identified as being in an off‑side position.

However, the VAR team appears to have spent the bulk of the review debating whether Fernández touched the ball, rather than assessing whether his position interfered with the goalkeeper, Ederson, or with the play itself. Pro Ref argued that the VAR should have asked referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on‑field review, allowing Oliver to make a subjective judgment on whether Fernández impacted the play. This step was never taken, meaning the goal was allowed on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of the off‑side law.

**Impact on the goalkeeper** Replays show United goalkeeper David de Gea reacting to Fernández’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland’s strike. Even if de Gea was not directly touched by the ball, his positioning was already affected by Fernández’s presence in the six‑yard area.

By the letter of the law, this should have been sufficient to disallow the goal, regardless of whether Fernández actually made contact with the ball. **Why the decision was inconsistent** The inconsistency stems from two separate errors: first, the on‑field assistant referee flagged Haaland for off‑side when he was on‑side; second, the VAR failed to apply the correct off‑side principle to Fernández. The correct procedure would have been to overturn the on‑field call, then immediately request an on‑field review of Fernández’s interference. Instead, the VAR’s focus on a technical detail led to the goal being allowed.

**Official reaction** One of the City players, after the match, expressed frustration: "I think [Fernández] was off‑side. 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 be calm but it is 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." **Who was the VAR?** The VAR on duty was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main referee, he has extensive VAR experience, having served as VAR in 24 matches and as Assistant VAR in six during the 2025/26 season.

**Technology and semi‑automated off‑side** This season the Premier League introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic for reviewable incidents. This replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine off‑side. While the new system aims to increase accuracy and speed, the Haaland incident shows that human interpretation remains a critical factor. **Added time controversy** A final unanswered question concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the half.

Haaland’s goal was scored at 59 minutes 24 seconds, and after the lengthy VAR check play did not resume until 63 minutes 15 seconds. Despite this four‑minute delay, only five minutes of added time were announced at the end of the half.

Critics argue that the officials may have neglected to factor the VAR review into their calculation of stoppage time. **Looking ahead** The incident has reignited debate over the clarity of the off‑side law, the training of VAR officials, and the role of technology in decision‑making.

Some analysts suggest that future protocols should require an automatic on‑field review whenever a player in an off‑side position is deemed to have interfered with an opponent, even if he does not touch the ball. Others call for clearer guidance on what constitutes "impact" or "interference" to reduce subjective interpretation.

In summary, the Haaland goal controversy highlights a cascade of errors: an incorrect on‑field off‑side flag, a VAR focus on an irrelevant technicality, and a missed opportunity for an on‑field review. While the semi‑automated system improves precision, the human element still dictates outcomes, and this match serves as a reminder that further refinement is needed to ensure fairness in the Premier League.