Erling Haaland scored the only goal as Manchester City beat Manchester United 1-0 at Old Trafford, but the Manchester derby ended with the winning goal attracting far more attention than the result itself. Haaland was initially flagged offside, VAR overturned that decision and the goal stood, only for refereeing body Pro Ref to later admit that the review had missed another part of the incident involving Enzo Fernandez.
The important point is that the controversy was not really about Haaland's position. VAR established that the Manchester City striker was onside, with Patrick Dorgu playing him on, but Fernandez was in an offside position when he tried to become involved in the same attacking move. That distinction is what turned what initially looked like a straightforward VAR check into one of the first major refereeing controversies of the Premier League season.
Why was Haaland's goal originally ruled out?
Haaland scored in the 60th minute from Josko Gvardiol's delivery, but the assistant referee initially raised the flag for offside. VAR checked Haaland's position and concluded that Dorgu had kept him onside, meaning the goalscorer himself had committed no offside offence. On that question alone, overturning the original decision was correct.
The problem was that Haaland was not the only Manchester City player involved in the phase. Fernandez had moved towards the ball from an offside position and attempted to play it before Haaland finished the attack. VAR decided at the time that Fernandez had not played the ball and therefore allowed the goal, but the laws of the game do not require an offside player to actually touch the ball before an offence can be committed.
Can a player be offside without touching the ball?
Yes, and that is the key to understanding the decision. Law 11 states that simply standing in an offside position is not an offence, but a player can be penalised if he becomes involved in active play by interfering with an opponent. That includes challenging an opponent for the ball, clearly attempting to play a nearby ball when that action affects an opponent, or making an obvious action that has a clear impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball.
This means the question VAR needed to answer was not simply: “Did Fernandez touch the ball?” The correct question was whether his attempt to play it affected a Manchester United defender's ability to deal with the situation. IFAB even gives examples in which an attacker attempts to head a ball, fails to make contact and is still penalised because his action affects the defending player.
That is why the initial explanation that Fernandez had not touched the ball was never enough on its own. An offside decision can depend on the effect a player's movement has on an opponent rather than whether the ball actually makes contact with him.
Why did Pro Ref say VAR was wrong?
After reviewing the incident, Pro Ref acknowledged that VAR had failed to properly consider Fernandez's influence on the play. The refereeing body concluded that the situation involved a subjective offside judgement and that referee Michael Oliver should have been sent to the pitchside monitor to assess whether Fernandez had interfered with an opponent.
That distinction is important. Haaland being onside could be established using the normal positional check, but judging whether another player had interfered with an opponent required an assessment of the football action itself. According to Pro Ref, VAR Matt Donohue should therefore have recommended an on-field review instead of simply confirming the goal.
The consequences did not stop with an admission after the match. Donohue was removed from Premier League duty for the following weekend, while assistant VAR Blake Antrobus was also stood down after the review of the incident.
So should Haaland's goal have been disallowed?
Based on Pro Ref's subsequent assessment, the incident should at least have been sent to Michael Oliver for an on-field review, and the refereeing body has acknowledged that allowing the goal through the VAR process was an error. The issue was Fernandez's involvement from an offside position rather than Haaland himself being offside.
This is also why saying that “Haaland's goal was offside” is slightly misleading. Haaland was onside when the decisive ball was played. The potential offence occurred because another attacking player who was offside attempted to become involved in the move and, in the view reached after the match, his involvement should not have been ignored.
For Manchester United, that distinction offers little consolation. City won 1-0 and Haaland's goal remained the decisive moment of the derby, while the result itself cannot simply be changed after the refereeing body acknowledges an incorrect decision. What the incident does provide is a useful example of one of the most misunderstood parts of the offside law: touching the ball and interfering with play are not the same thing.
What does “interfering with an opponent” mean in the offside rule?
The modern offside law is designed to distinguish between a player who happens to be standing offside and one whose presence actually affects the game. An attacker can therefore remain in an offside position without being penalised if he does nothing that influences an opponent and does not play the ball. Once he challenges for it, makes a clear attempt to play it or takes an action that affects a defender, the situation changes.
That is also why two visually similar situations can produce different decisions. If an offside attacker runs towards the ball but an onside team-mate reaches it and the offside player has no impact on a defender, play can continue. If the same attacker jumps for the ball or otherwise forces a defender to react, he may be penalised even without making contact.
The Manchester derby provided an unusually high-profile example. VAR correctly established that Haaland himself was onside, but that did not settle the entire offside question. Fernandez's action still had to be judged separately, and it was that part of the review that Pro Ref later accepted had been handled incorrectly.
Published by Patrick Jane
14.09.2026