Howard Webb calls for change to handball law and admits VAR "tunnel vision" in Manchester derby
Howard Webb, head of Pro Ref, the organisation responsible for professional referees in English football, has publicly called for a change to the law on accidental handball following a series of incidents that have once again raised questions about the consistency and clarity of football's regulations. On Match Officials Mic'd Up, broadcast on 15 September, Webb described the current solution as "a bit nonsensical", pointing out that in very similar situations the outcome can be completely different simply because the ball deflected off an opposing player on its way towards the net. At the same time, he spoke in detail about a major VAR error in the Manchester derby between Manchester United and Manchester City, played on 13 September at Old Trafford. According to Webb's explanation, the video assistant focused too heavily on Erling Haaland's position and, in doing so, failed to properly assess the impact of Enzo Fernández, who was in an offside position. Pro Ref subsequently acknowledged that Manchester City's goal should have been disallowed.
Accidental handball law back under scrutiny
Webb's criticism of the handball law was prompted by an incident in the league match between Manchester United and Ipswich Town on 30 August. With the score at 1:1, the ball struck Harry Maguire on the arm, after which the United defender shot towards goal. His effort was not heading directly on target but deflected off Ipswich defender Jacob Greaves and ended up in the net, so the goal was officially recorded as an own goal. VAR judged that Maguire's handball was not deliberate and that, because he was not formally the goalscorer, the provision requiring a goal to be disallowed if a player scores immediately after the ball has touched his hand or arm, even accidentally, did not apply. Manchester United eventually won 5:2.
Under the current edition of the Laws of the Game issued by the International Football Association Board, IFAB, not every contact between the ball and a player's hand or arm is an offence. An offence occurs, among other circumstances, when a player deliberately handles the ball or when the position of the arm makes the body unnaturally bigger. However, the law specifically states that a goal must be disallowed if a player scores directly with the hand or arm, even accidentally, or scores immediately after the ball has touched the hand or arm. This means that, when assessing an incident, a distinction must be made between an ordinary accidental handball and an accidental handball immediately before the same player scores.
That is precisely where Webb sees the problem. Had Maguire's shot after the accidental handball gone directly into the net, the goal would have had to be disallowed under the current law. Because the ball struck Greaves on its way towards goal and the goal was recorded as an own goal, the same earlier handball did not automatically result in the goal being disallowed. Webb warned on the programme that such a distinction creates situations that appear illogical to players, coaches and spectators, even though referees are required to apply the law as written. His message is that IFAB should consider amending the provision to avoid a technical detail about who is credited with the goal determining a completely different disciplinary outcome.
IFAB law distinguishes the goalscorer from the preceding attacking phase
Official IFAB interpretations confirm that an accidental handball by a team-mate immediately before a goal is no longer an offence in itself, provided the position of the arm did not constitute a separately punishable offence. At the same time, a player who personally scores immediately after the ball accidentally touches the hand or arm must still be penalised with a direct free kick for the opposing team. That distinction was introduced after years of amendments to the law through which IFAB attempted to separate deliberate and punishable handball more precisely from accidental contact that does not create an obvious unfair advantage.
The Maguire case showed how difficult such a regulatory distinction is to explain when only the final detail changes in a real passage of play. The Premier League's Key Match Incidents panel subsequently supported the decision to allow the goal to stand. According to reports on the panel's conclusion, four of the five members considered the contact with Maguire's arm to have been accidental and that his arms remained within the line of his body, while one member believed the handball had been deliberate. Because the goal was credited to Greaves, the majority of the panel concluded that there was no basis for disallowing it under the current law.
Webb therefore did not claim that the officials in the United-Ipswich match had applied the law incorrectly. On the contrary, his criticism was directed at the wording of the law itself and the consequences arising from it. That is an important distinction because the English refereeing organisation cannot independently change the fundamental Laws of the Game. Responsibility for them lies with IFAB, the body in which FIFA and the football associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland participate. Any lasting change to the laws must go through its formal process of consideration and approval.
Major VAR error in Manchester derby
The second major part of Webb's appearance concerned Erling Haaland's goal with which Manchester City defeated Manchester United 1:0 at Old Trafford on 13 September. Haaland's goal in the 60th minute was initially disallowed for offside. VAR Matt Donohue then used semi-automated offside technology to determine that Haaland had in fact been in an onside position. According to publicly available reports analysing the footage, Patrick Dorgu had kept the City forward onside by only a few centimetres, so the initial decision that Haaland was offside was correctly overturned.
The problem, however, arose in the same move because of Enzo Fernández's position. The Manchester City midfielder was in an offside position as the ball came into the penalty area, and then lunged towards it and passed very close to the area where Lisandro Martínez and goalkeeper Senne Lammens were trying to react. Fernández did not touch the ball, but under the offside law, contact is not necessary for a player to commit an offence. IFAB explicitly provides that a player in an offside position can be penalised if, through an obvious action, he affects an opponent's ability to play the ball or if an attempt to play a ball that is close affects an opponent.
Webb said that this part of the move should have been thoroughly assessed. According to his explanation, Fernández's attempt to reach the ball affected Martínez's ability to intervene in time and may also have affected Lammens's positioning before Haaland's shot. For that reason, according to Pro Ref's position following its subsequent analysis, VAR should have recommended that referee Michael Oliver conduct an on-field review. Had that procedure been carried out correctly, the expected outcome would have been the goal being disallowed because of Fernández's active involvement from an offside position.
Webb: VAR developed "tunnel vision"
Webb described the way the error occurred as "tunnel vision". He explained that Donohue, after the semi-automated technology showed that Haaland was not offside, focused too heavily on the Norwegian forward and on whether Fernández might have touched the ball before the finish. Because there was no touch, VAR failed to assess the other elements of the offside law broadly enough, above all Fernández's impact on the defending players. Webb also stressed that the rest of the VAR team has a responsibility to alert the lead video assistant when a review becomes too narrow.
In the VAR room, Donohue was assisted by Blake Antrobus. After the match, Pro Ref acknowledged an "error of judgement", and the two officials were removed from duties until after the international break. Webb said he was very disappointed by the outcome and added that the referees themselves were affected by the mistake because they take their work professionally and seriously. The organisation contacted Manchester United after the match and acknowledged that the decision had been wrong.
This case is particularly significant because the technology itself did not make an error when determining Haaland's position. The semi-automated system correctly resolved the geometric question of whether the forward was beyond the second-last defender at the moment the ball was played. The error occurred in the next step, in the human assessment of the behaviour of another player in an offside position. This once again highlighted one of VAR's fundamental limitations: technology can provide precise assistance in measuring positions, but interpreting active interference with an opponent still requires refereeing judgement.
Offside does not depend solely on whether a player touched the ball
Under IFAB Law 11, merely being in an offside position is not an offence. A player is penalised only when becoming actively involved in play, gaining an advantage or interfering with an opponent in a manner defined by the laws. Interfering with an opponent includes, among other things, an obvious attempt to play a ball which is close when that action affects an opponent, as well as making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. That was precisely the key point in the subsequent assessment of Fernández's movement.
Such situations are often more complex than a standard graphical offside check because they require an assessment of cause and effect. The referee must decide whether a player in an offside position actually changed a defender's or goalkeeper's reaction, rather than merely whether the player physically touched the ball. In the Manchester derby, Pro Ref concluded that Fernández had been close enough to the ball and the opponents for his movement to have a genuine effect. Webb's admission was therefore not a criticism of the offside technology itself, but of the way the VAR team conducted the complete review of the move.
The case also showed why VAR protocols insist on reviewing the entire relevant attacking phase rather than only the first potential offence identified. When the initial on-field decision concerned Haaland, attention naturally focused on his position. But after it had been established that Haaland was in an onside position, the review needed to continue with equal attention to all other potential offences in the move. According to Webb, that is precisely what did not happen.
Transparency becoming an increasingly important part of the refereeing system
Webb's public analysis is part of a broader effort by English football authorities to explain key refereeing decisions in greater detail. Match Officials Mic'd Up uses recordings of communication between the referee, VAR and other members of the officiating team to show the public what was reviewed and how the final decision was reached. In recent seasons, the Premier League and refereeing structures have also published more information about the conclusions of the panel that independently reviews key match incidents.
Such transparency does not eliminate controversy, but it allows a clearer distinction between three different types of problems: incorrect application of the laws, incorrect assessment of the facts, and situations in which the decision is technically correct but the law itself is difficult to understand or produces unexpected consequences. In the same public appearance, Webb was effectively discussing two different examples. In the case of Haaland's goal, Pro Ref acknowledges a specific refereeing error in the VAR review process. In the case of Maguire's handball, by contrast, Webb believes the existing law was applied as written but that the law itself should be changed.
For the Premier League, both cases come at a sensitive time because confidence in VAR depends both on technical precision and on trust that the same criteria are applied consistently. Semi-automated offside can reduce the time needed to measure player positions, but the incident in the Manchester derby shows that faster technology does not remove the need for comprehensive human analysis. At the same time, the handball debate is a reminder that even a completely correct refereeing decision will not necessarily be intuitive if the wording of the law is too complicated or produces different outcomes in almost identical passages of play.
Changing the law is not in Webb's hands
Webb can publicly advocate changes and participate in the debate through English football structures, but the final say on the global laws belongs to IFAB. That body considers possible amendments to the Laws of the Game every year, and once approved, changes are applied internationally, not only in England. Therefore, any potential revision of the provision on accidental handball would not be a Premier League-specific solution but would have to be worded so that it could be applied consistently in competitions around the world.
The debate is therefore likely to focus on whether the law can be simplified without reopening the door to even greater differences in interpretation. IFAB has changed the handball law several times precisely because it has tried to find a balance between objective criteria and refereeing judgement concerning intent, arm position and the consequence of contact. Webb's example involving Maguire shows that the current version can still produce an outcome that is legally consistent but difficult to explain to an ordinary observer.
For English referees, the more immediate task will be to avoid a repeat of the failure seen in the derby. Webb's message was that VAR must not end its analysis as soon as it resolves the issue that initially attracted attention, but must assess all relevant elements of the move. In the case of Haaland's goal, precise technology correctly showed that he was not offside, but the human review missed the next and decisive question. It is precisely this combination of technical accuracy and refereeing interpretation that remains one of the biggest practical issues in modern football.
Sources:
- The Guardian - report on Webb's call for reform of the accidental handball law and his analysis of the error in the Manchester derby (link)
- Sky Sports - report from Match Officials Mic'd Up on VAR's "tunnel vision" and Enzo Fernández's role in Haaland's goal (link)
- IFAB - official Law 11 on offside and the criteria for interfering with an opponent from an offside position (link)
- IFAB - official Law 12 on handball, including accidental contact immediately before a goalscorer scores (link)
- NBC Sports - analysis of the Harry Maguire handball incident and Jacob Greaves own goal in the match between Manchester United and Ipswich Town (link)