The winning strike that Erling Haaland netted in the Manchester derby on Sunday has become the subject of heated debate, not only because it decided the match but also because the circumstances surrounding the decision were highly controversial. Initially, the goal was ruled out for off‑side on the field, only to be reinstated after a VAR review.
The VAR panel concluded that Haaland was on‑side thanks to a pass from Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu, yet they appeared to overlook the fact that City midfielder Enzo Fernández was positioned off‑side and attempted to play the ball before it reached Haaland. This oversight has left fans, pundits, and officials scrambling for answers.
The Professional Game Referees (formerly known as PGMOL) issued a statement on Sunday night admitting that a mistake had been made when the goal was allowed to stand. While they described the incident as an "error of judgement," the explanation they offered only addressed part of the problem. They acknowledged that the goal should have been disallowed because Fernández was off‑side, but they added that the VAR "did not recognise the likely impact of his position." What remains unclear is why the VAR team failed to appreciate that a player standing six yards from the goal line, attempting a diving header, should be judged as having interfered with play even if he did not make contact with the ball.
In a mid‑match post on X, the Match Centre account summarised the decision: "The VAR also deemed that while in an off‑side position, Fernández didn't play the ball." Sky Sports' coverage showed replays of the VAR officials zooming in on the moment the ball crossed the six‑yard box, trying to determine whether Fernández actually touched it. This raises the question of whether the VAR became overly fixated on a technical nuance—whether the ball was touched—while ignoring the broader principle of the off‑side law, which states that a player can be penalised for being in an off‑side position regardless of whether he touches the ball, if he interferes with an opponent's ability to play the ball. According to Pro Ref, the original on‑field decision was that Haaland was off‑side, a call that was later overturned because the referee judged him to be on‑side. The review then shifted focus to Fernández, correctly identifying him as off‑side.
However, the VAR team apparently spent the bulk of their time debating whether Fernández had made contact with the ball, rather than assessing the impact of his position on the goalkeeper's actions. The result was a mixed message: the goal was allowed because Haaland was on‑side, yet the off‑side infringement that should have nullified the goal—Fernández's position—was not properly accounted for. Pro Ref suggested that the correct protocol would have been to ask the on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, to conduct an on‑field review. Oliver would then have had to make a subjective judgment about whether Fernández's presence interfered with play, such as by distracting the goalkeeper.
Indeed, video footage shows United goalkeeper David de Gea (referred to in the original text as Martinez) reacting to Fernández's movement, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance just before Haaland struck the ball. Even if de Gea was not directly obstructed, the mere presence of an off‑side player in a key scoring area can be deemed to have influenced the goalkeeper's positioning and thus the outcome of the play. The paradox here is that the off‑side call was initially made against an on‑side player (Haaland), while the real infringement involved an off‑side player (Fernández). Because the on‑field decision targeted the wrong player, the VAR should have escalated the issue to an on‑field review rather than attempting to correct the mistake by focusing on a secondary technicality.
In other words, the correct sequence would have been: recognise that Fernández was off‑side, determine that his position interfered with the goalkeeper, and then overturn the goal entirely. Adding another layer of complexity, the VAR in charge of the review was Matt Donohue. Although Donohue has only refereed four Premier League matches as the main official, he has extensive VAR experience, having served as the video assistant in 24 Premier League games and as an Assistant VAR in six matches during the 2025/26 season.
His expertise, however, did not prevent the procedural error that occurred in this high‑profile incident. The Premier League has introduced semi‑automated off‑side technology this season, which provides a visual kick‑point graphic to aid officials during reviews.
This system differs from the older method where VAR analysts manually placed crosshairs and drew lines to determine the exact moment of off‑side. While the new technology is designed to increase accuracy and speed, the Haaland incident demonstrates that human interpretation remains a critical factor, especially when deciding whether an off‑side player has impacted play. One lingering question concerns the amount of stoppage time added at the end of the half.
Haaland's goal was recorded at 59 minutes and 24 seconds, and after the lengthy VAR review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. Despite this four‑minute interruption, only five minutes of added time were announced for the half.
Observers wonder whether the officials inadvertently omitted the VAR review time from their calculation, potentially affecting the total amount of stoppage time awarded. In summary, the controversy stems from a cascade of missteps: an initial off‑side call against the wrong player, a VAR focus on a peripheral technicality rather than the core principle of interference, and a missed opportunity to invoke an on‑field review that could have resolved the issue definitively. The incident underscores the challenges of integrating new technology with traditional officiating judgment and highlights the need for clearer protocols when multiple off‑side situations occur simultaneously. As the Premier League continues to refine its VAR procedures, this episode will likely serve as a case study for future improvements.
Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m! Enter for free.