Pro Ref admits VAR error in Manchester derby: Haaland's winning goal should have been reviewed further
Manchester City beat Manchester United 1-0 at Old Trafford in the 199th Manchester derby, but the match on 13 September 2026 had a major off-field aftermath after the English refereeing body Pro Ref admitted an error in the VAR procedure for the only goal. Erling Haaland scored in the 60th minute, after City had been playing with ten men since the 23rd minute following Phil Foden's dismissal. The goal was initially disallowed on the field for offside, but VAR determined that Haaland was in an onside position and recommended that the goal be awarded. According to Pro Ref's subsequent explanation, the problem was not Haaland's position but the role of Enzo Fernández, who was in an offside position and attempted to play the ball before it reached the Norwegian striker. The refereeing body assessed that VAR had not sufficiently taken into account the possible impact of Fernández's movement on defender Lisandro Martínez and that referee Michael Oliver should have been advised to conduct an on-field review.
The admission of the error is particularly significant because it concerned the decisive moment of a match in which there were no further goals. According to Manchester City's report, Haaland finished a move from Joško Gvardiol's cross on the hour mark, and after a VAR check lasting several minutes the goal was awarded. City then preserved their narrow lead despite their numerical disadvantage and took all three points from Old Trafford. Pro Ref contacted Manchester United later that same evening and admitted what it called an error of judgement, while the case continued with an internal review. The following day, 14 September, British media also reported that VAR Matt Donohue and his assistant Blake Antrobus had not been assigned to the next round of the Premier League, further intensifying the debate over how active involvement by players in an offside position is assessed in England.
How the controversial situation developed
The key move began with a Manchester City attack down the left. Gvardiol sent the ball into the area in front of goal, and the refereeing team's initial decision was that the goal should not stand because Haaland was offside. VAR then checked the Norwegian striker's position and, according to the Premier League Match Centre explanation reported by Sky Sports, concluded that Haaland was in an onside position because United defender Patrick Dorgu was playing him onside. On that basis, VAR recommended that the goal be awarded. At the same time, however, Enzo Fernández was in an offside position and moved towards the cross, attempting to reach the ball before it travelled through to Haaland on the other side.
Fernández did not touch the ball, but that was precisely where the dispute over the interpretation of the law arose. According to the footage and Pro Ref's subsequent assessment, his movement may have affected Lisandro Martínez, who had to react to the City player in the centre of the penalty area. Had Fernández not moved towards the ball, Martínez would have had a different opportunity to position himself and react to the cross that eventually reached Haaland. Pro Ref therefore did not dispute the technical conclusion that Haaland himself was onside, but assessed that VAR had failed to evaluate the second element of the move correctly. In its official clarification, reported by Sky Sports and Reuters, the refereeing body stated that Fernández did not play the ball, which made the assessment of his offside involvement subjective, but that VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of his position on the defending player.
In such a situation, according to Pro Ref's position, the correct procedure would have been to send Michael Oliver to the pitchside monitor. This is an important distinction from the automated or semi-automated determination of a player's position itself. Technology can help determine whether a foot, body or another relevant part of a player is beyond the permitted line, but it does not make the final judgement as to whether the player interfered with an opponent through his movement. When such a subjective assessment is involved, the referee should have the opportunity to review the footage and decide whether an offside offence occurred. Pro Ref identified precisely that omitted step as the key procedural error in relation to Haaland's goal.
Why touching the ball is not the only criterion for offside
The Laws of the Game of the International Football Association Board, IFAB, clearly distinguish between merely being in an offside position and committing an offside offence. A player is not automatically penalised simply because he is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent at the moment the ball is played. An offence occurs only if a player in such a position becomes involved in active play. In Law 11, IFAB lists several ways in which this can happen, including playing or touching the ball, obstructing an opponent's line of vision, challenging an opponent for the ball, clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts an opponent, or making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
For that reason, the fact that Fernández did not touch the cross was not in itself sufficient for the move automatically to be considered legitimate. The question was whether his attempt to reach the ball from an offside position changed Martínez's reaction. This was precisely the circumstance highlighted by Pro Ref when it admitted that VAR should have recommended an on-field review. IFAB's laws expressly provide that a player can commit an offside offence without making contact with the ball if his attempt to play a nearby ball clearly impacts an opponent. That provision exists because defenders and goalkeepers make their decisions in fractions of a second, reacting not only to the trajectory of the ball but also to the movement of attackers around them.
The Manchester controversy is therefore not an example of technology incorrectly drawing the line for Haaland's position, but a case in which an additional footballing judgement should have followed the objective geometric check. According to Sky Sports' report, VAR determined that Haaland was onside, but the communication focused on the fact that Fernández had not touched the ball. Pro Ref's subsequent analysis concluded that this was not sufficient. Under the laws, the effect of an offside player's action on an opponent is also decisive, so that element should have been presented to the referee. The case thus became another reminder that semi-automated technology can solve only part of the offside problem, while the assessment of active involvement remains a human decision.
Manchester United receives admission of error, but result remains 0-1
Pro Ref contacted Manchester United during the evening after the match, according to reports by Sky Sports and Reuters. The refereeing body stated that it had been an error of judgement and announced a review of the incident. Such an admission, however, does not change the result of the match. In professional football, a subsequent assessment that a referee or VAR made an incorrect decision does not normally overturn the result of a completed match; the official record remains in force, while the analysis is used for assessing officials and making future appointments.
Manchester United manager Michael Carrick openly expressed his dissatisfaction after the match. According to his statement reported by Reuters and Sky Sports, he had been told that Fernández did not interfere with play, something Carrick could not accept because the City player moved towards the ball in the immediate vicinity of goal and thereby forced Martínez to react. Carrick also placed the issue within the broader context of the VAR system, stressing that the large number of people, camera angles and technological layers should serve to produce a more accurate decision rather than create additional uncertainty. His criticism was directed above all at the interpretation of the law and the process by which the final decision was reached.
Lisandro Martínez made a similar argument. Sky Sports reports that the United defender believed Fernández's presence directly determined his defensive reaction and opened space for Haaland on the other side. That question of influence on an opponent is precisely what Pro Ref subsequently acknowledged had not been considered sufficiently. On the other hand, Manchester City manager Enzo Maresca immediately after the match believed that Haaland had been in an onside position and that Fernández had not influenced the move. The refereeing body's subsequent statement, however, found that the incident should have been referred back to the referee for an on-field review, officially acknowledging that the original VAR process had been incomplete.
Foden's dismissal shaped most of the derby
The controversy surrounding the winning goal was not the only major refereeing decision of the match. Phil Foden was sent off in the 23rd minute following an altercation with Bruno Fernandes, leaving Manchester City to play with ten men for more than an hour. According to City's official report, Foden reacted after contact with the United captain and the referee showed him a red card. After the match, Enzo Maresca did not dispute that Foden's reaction warranted a dismissal, but argued that Fernandes should also have been punished more severely for the action that preceded the incident. That situation also provoked debate among former players and television pundits, but Pro Ref's public admission of an error related specifically to Haaland's goal.
Despite being a player down, City managed to maintain their structure and limit United's chances. Manchester City's club report states that the home side managed only three shots on target against Gianluigi Donnarumma during the match. Haaland's goal therefore carried even greater significance: it was the only goal of the game and enough to secure victory for a team that had been numerically inferior from an early stage. For United, meanwhile, the controversial decision came at a time when they were trying to exploit their extra player and take control of the scoreline. For that reason, the refereeing body's admission of an error had a greater impact than a decision in a match settled by a margin of several goals might have had.
VAR officials not appointed for the next round
The consequences did not end with the public admission. The Guardian reported on 14 September that Matt Donohue, who had been the VAR at Old Trafford, and his assistant Blake Antrobus were not appointed for the following Premier League weekend. According to the report, the decision was made after a review of the incident by chief refereeing officer Howard Webb and his team, while the availability of the two officials for future matches was expected to be reconsidered after the international break. The Guardian states that this was the first case of the current season in which officials had been removed from appointments because of an error.
According to the same source, Donohue used semi-automated technology to determine that Haaland was not offside. The error occurred in the next phase, when Fernández's influence from an offside position was not recognised and an on-field review was not recommended. This distinction is important for understanding the case: the technological check of Haaland's position itself was not identified as incorrect; the problem lay in the human assessment of what Fernández's action meant under Law 11. The case therefore does not suggest that technology is incapable of determining the offside line, but instead demonstrates the limit of how far it can assist without a referee's final interpretation.
Pro Ref is the name used since the summer of 2026 for the organisation previously known as PGMO, or Professional Game Match Officials. According to Sky Sports' explanation, the organisation is led by former Premier League referee Howard Webb and is responsible for refereeing in the leading men's English competitions as well as other professional leagues. It is precisely because of that institutional role that the admission of the error is significant: this is not merely criticism from a club, manager or television pundit, but a subsequent assessment by the body responsible for the work of referees. At the same time, the decision not to appoint Donohue and Antrobus temporarily demonstrates that an internal review can have immediate personnel consequences.
The case once again raises the question of the boundary between technology and refereeing judgement
VAR was introduced to reduce the number of clear and important errors, particularly involving goals, penalty kicks, direct red cards and mistaken identity. However, situations such as this one at Old Trafford show that even a highly precise technological check cannot eliminate every area requiring judgement. Determining Haaland's position was a matter of measurable lines, whereas assessing whether Fernández influenced Martínez by attempting to play the ball required an interpretation of movement, distance and the consequences for the defending player. That is precisely why Pro Ref believes Michael Oliver should have been given the opportunity to review the incident personally on the monitor.
For the Premier League and English referees, the case comes at a sensitive time because VAR is expected to deliver both greater accuracy and fewer lengthy stoppages. Excessive reliance on interventions can slow the game and create the impression that almost every decision is being refereed again from the video room, while too few interventions increase the risk that an important error will remain uncorrected. Haaland's goal showed how difficult it is to find the right balance when objective and subjective elements are intertwined in the same move. VAR could correctly establish one fact, that Haaland was onside, and still bring the overall process to an incorrect conclusion because it did not sufficiently assess another player.
For Manchester City, the victory remains officially recorded, and Haaland's goal remains the only goal of the match. For Manchester United, Pro Ref's admission represents confirmation that the club had justified grounds to challenge the way the decisive incident was handled, but it does not restore the lost points. For the refereeing organisation, the consequences extend beyond a single result: the case will serve as an example in future analyses of situations in which a player in an offside position does not touch the ball but may influence an opponent through his movement. Consistency in such assessments will be crucial if VAR is to retain credibility in matches where a single decision can determine the final outcome.
Sources:
- Pro Ref / Sky Sports - admission of error, official explanation of the VAR decision, refereeing team and reactions after the match (link)
- Manchester City - official match report, result, timing of Haaland's goal, Foden's dismissal and basic match statistics (link)
- IFAB - Law 11 on offside and criteria for interfering with an opponent without touching the ball (link)
- Reuters / The Star - report on the admission of the VAR error and Michael Carrick's statement after the derby (link)
- The Guardian - information on VAR officials Matt Donohue and Blake Antrobus being removed from appointments for the next round (link)