Pro Ref Admits VAR Error Over Haaland's Goal in Manchester Derby

The fallout from the Manchester derby has landed quickly – and heavily – on the officials.

Refereeing body Pro Ref has confirmed it made a mistake in allowing Erling Haaland’s winning goal to stand in Manchester City’s 1-0 victory over Manchester United at Old Trafford, admitting the strike should have been subjected to an on-field review.

Hours after the final whistle, Pro Ref contacted Manchester United and released a statement acknowledging an “error of judgment” by the VAR team, who overturned the original offside call on the pitch.

How the decision unravelled

On the field, the assistant’s flag went up. Haaland was ruled offside after finishing at the back post.
In the VAR room, that changed.

Officials judged that Haaland had actually been played onside by United defender Patrick Dorgu. The focus then shifted to Enzo Fernandez, who was standing in an offside position and moving towards the ball in the build-up.

Fernandez never touched it. That became the key line of defence for the VAR team – but also the core of the controversy.

Replays showed Fernandez clearly attempting to play the ball as it travelled across the box, his movement drawing the attention of Lisandro Martinez before Haaland converted at the far post. By the letter of the law, that kind of action can still constitute offside interference, even without a touch.

Pro Ref now accepts that point.

“The on-field decision was offside against Erling Haaland – that was checked by VAR and he was found to be in an onside position,” a Pro Ref spokesperson said.

“In the same attack, it was established that Enzo Fernandez did not play the ball and therefore that makes any offside offence subjective, however, on this occasion, the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on-field review.

“Contact has been made with Manchester United this evening to acknowledge what we deem is an error of judgement. A review of the incident will take place.”

Match Centre explanation under fire

Earlier, the Premier League Match Centre had tried to clarify why the goal stood, stressing that Fernandez had not made contact with the ball.

Its post on X read: “VAR checked the referee's call of no goal for offside – and determined that Haaland was in an onside position and recommended that the goal was awarded. The VAR also deemed that while in an offside position, Fernandez didn't play the ball.”

That justification mirrored the VAR’s focus during the review, with angles repeatedly showing whether Fernandez had touched the pass.

But the offside law is clear: a player in an offside position can still be penalised without touching the ball if he interferes with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision, or
• challenging an opponent for the ball, or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent, or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

The argument now raging is simple: did Fernandez’s attempt to play the ball affect Martinez? Pro Ref’s admission strongly suggests it should have been treated as interference.

Neville saw trouble coming

Gary Neville called it in real time.

On co-commentary for Sky Sports, the former United defender insisted the VAR officials were “wrong” to award the goal and predicted an admission of error from Pro Ref.

He did not quite get the full apology he anticipated, but the refereeing body’s statement comes close.

“There is no doubt that Enzo is attempting to play the ball and putting Lisandro Martinez off,” Neville told Sky Sports. “It's a really strange one. They'll recognise they got that wrong.”

On his podcast, he went even harder at the interpretation of the law.

“I think they are ignoring the rule,” he said. “They are digging themselves a bigger hole [with the Match Centre statement]. I'm really surprised they put that out. They will have to retract that.”

Martinez: ‘We go home with injustice’

Lisandro Martinez, the defender directly involved in the incident, did not hide his anger.

Speaking post-match, he highlighted the briefings clubs receive each season from officials, and the gap between those explanations and what unfolded at Old Trafford.

“Every season the officials come to our club and spend an hour explaining the rules and they look so confident with that,” he told Sky Sports.

“Then after, five or six people [officials] doing this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable.

“We have to go home with this injustice.”

For United, the sense is not just of a goal conceded, but of a line of defence punished despite being well held.

Richards and Keane slam decision

Micah Richards, a former Manchester City defender but firmly on the side of the law here, called the goal award “a nonsense.”

The Match Centre’s focus on Fernandez not touching the ball did not wash with him.

Asked if Fernandez was clearly attempting to play the ball, Richards told Sky Sports: “One hundred per cent he is.

“I think it's been a bad day for referees and VAR. They got the Phil Foden decision wrong, and they got this decision wrong.

“How you can not say Enzo Fernandez is challenging for the ball – of course he is!

“I've been in that position as a defender where any slight movement can make the difference for going for the ball or not, so of course it affects him.

“I just think they've got it so wrong.”

Roy Keane went straight to the heart of the defensive line argument.

“Fernandez is interfering with play. Basically, United have been punished for holding a good line,” he said. “When you are in that position, you are impacting the game. You're in the middle of the box, you're going for the ball.

Their line is good. Fernandez is offside, and he goes to play the ball, so United are getting punished for good defending.”

Pro Ref’s review will now pick over every frame and every phrase of the law. The bigger question lingers over the season: if this is “subjective” offside, how many more decisive goals will be left to interpretation rather than clarity?