Erling Haaland’s match‑winning strike in the Manchester derby on Sunday sparked a heated debate because of the way it was allowed to stand. The goal was first flagged off‑side on the field, only to be overturned after a VAR review. The review concluded that Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu had kept Haaland onside, but it also noted that City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned off‑side when he attempted to play the ball before it reached the Norwegian forward.
This sequence of events has left fans, pundits, and officials scrambling for a clear explanation of why the technology and the officials failed to apply the off‑side law correctly. The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night acknowledging that a mistake had been made when the goal was awarded. Their admission was limited to an "error of judgement" and they provided only a partial rationale: the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of Fernández’s off‑side position.
In other words, they accepted that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernández was off‑side, but they did not explain why the VAR overlooked the fact that a player six yards from the goal line, who was making a diving header, could not have materially influenced the play. This omission has become the focal point of the controversy. Match Centre, in a mid‑game post on X, attempted to clarify the decision by stating that the VAR deemed Fernández "did not play the ball" while he was in an off‑side position. Sky Sports’ coverage showed the VAR team scrutinising the footage to determine whether Fernández actually made contact with the ball as it crossed the six‑yard box.
The question that emerged was whether the VAR became overly fixated on a technicality – the act of touching the ball – rather than the broader principle that an off‑side player is penalised regardless of whether he touches the ball. The off‑side rule is explicit: a player in an off‑side position is considered to have interfered with play if he influences an opponent, gains an advantage, or blocks the goalkeeper’s line of sight, even without touching the ball.
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 indeed off‑side. However, the VAR team apparently concentrated solely on whether Fernández had touched the ball, ignoring the more relevant factor – whether his position interfered with the goalkeeper’s ability to react.
The VAR therefore failed to confirm that the goal should have been disallowed for the proper reason (Fernández’s off‑side interference) and instead left the decision in a grey area that ultimately benefited Haaland. Pro Ref suggested that the VAR should have asked the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review. Such a review would have required Oliver to make a subjective judgement about whether Fernández’s presence impacted the goalkeeper, David de Gea, or the subsequent play.
In the replays, de Gea can be seen reacting to Fernández’s movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header, and briefly losing his balance before Haaland struck the ball. Even if de Gea’s reaction was partially caused by Fernández, the goal should still have been ruled out because the off‑side offence was committed by Fernández, not Haaland.
The VAR’s focus on the technical detail of a touch, rather than the broader impact, led to the erroneous endorsement of the goal. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the on‑field decision was initially against Haaland.
According to protocol, when the VAR confirms an off‑side offence against a player other than the scorer, the referee must be asked to review the incident on the pitch. This step was omitted, allowing the decision to stand despite the clear error.
Adding to the confusion, the VAR official overseeing the review was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has limited experience as a referee in the Premier League – only four matches – he has served as a VAR in 24 Premier League games and six as an assistant VAR in the 2025/26 season. His extensive VAR background did not prevent the misapplication of the off‑side rule in this high‑profile case.
The Premier League has introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology this season, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic for each review. This system replaces the older method where VAR officials manually placed cross‑hairs to determine the off‑side line. While the new technology promises greater accuracy, it also requires officials to interpret the visual data correctly. In this instance, the technology may have highlighted Fernández’s position, but the human element – deciding whether his position constituted interference – was mishandled.
Another unanswered question concerns the amount of stoppage time added after the review. Haaland’s goal was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and play did not resume until 63 minutes and 15 seconds following a lengthy VAR check. Despite this substantial pause, the referee added only five minutes of extra time at the end of the half. Critics argue that the time lost to the VAR review should have been reflected in a longer added‑on period, raising concerns about consistency in time‑keeping.
In summary, the controversy surrounding Haaland’s goal stems from a chain of procedural missteps: an initial off‑side call against the scorer, a VAR focus on an irrelevant technical detail, a failure to request an on‑field review, and an inconsistent application of added time. The incident highlights the challenges of integrating advanced technology with human judgment in fast‑paced football matches. As the league continues to refine its VAR protocols and the semi‑automated off‑side system, officials will need to ensure that the spirit of the off‑side law – preventing players from gaining an unfair advantage – is upheld, not merely its literal wording. The debate sparked by this derby will likely influence future training and guidelines for VAR officials, aiming to prevent a repeat of this high‑profile mistake.