The Sports Guru
Pro Ref has admitted it got something wrong over Erling Haaland's winning goal in the Manchester derby, but the statement raises a more interesting question than it answers: was it the right mistake to apologise for? Read on to see why the officiating body's own explanation may point to a different, uncorrected error sitting inside the same phase of play.
Pro Ref, the body responsible for Premier League refereeing standards, has admitted an "error of judgement" over Erling Haaland's winning goal in Manchester City's derby victory over Manchester United - but the mistake it owns up to is not the one most people were arguing about. Haaland's finish at Old Trafford was ruled offside on the field, then restored by VAR because a deflection off Patrick Dorgu's boot played him onside. Pro Ref says that part was fine. What it failed to check, according to its own statement, was whether Enzo Fernandez - standing offside and diving for the same ball without touching it - had already made the goal illegal before Haaland got anywhere near it.
The goal that was disallowed, then allowed, then admitted wrong
City's 60th-minute winner began with Josko Gvardiol's cross, which took a slight deflection off Dorgu's boot before reaching Haaland at the back post. The assistant's flag went up straight away, and the goal was chalked off for offside. VAR intervened, drew its lines against Dorgu's boot rather than United's defensive line, and sent word that Haaland was onside. The Premier League Match Centre confirmed on X that the check had also looked at Fernandez, noting he "didn't play the ball" while in an offside position, and on that basis recommended the goal stand. Ten-man City held on to win the derby with the goal that decision produced.
Why Fernandez's non-touch didn't settle the argument
The offside law contains a clause that VAR's initial check appears to have underplayed: a player in an offside position commits an offence if they are clearly attempting to play a ball close to them and that action impacts an opponent. Both conditions have to be met - a player can be offside, nearby the ball and still do nothing wrong if there's no impact on anyone else. Fernandez threw himself at Gvardiol's cross in the six-yard box with United defender Lisandro Martinez directly behind him, and the ball passed roughly a yard in front of Martinez. BBC football issues correspondent Dale Johnson argued that the question VAR should have asked was simple: would Martinez have played the situation differently had Fernandez not jumped for it. His verdict left little room for doubt: "It was a clear offside offence by Fernandez and will go down as a VAR mistake."
Pro Ref's admission, and what it leaves out
In its statement, Pro Ref said that because Fernandez never touched the ball, any offside offence against him was inherently subjective - a decision for a human to make, not a line for a machine to draw. That is precisely why it says the case should never have been settled by the video check alone: "the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on-field review." The body confirmed it has contacted Manchester United to acknowledge the error and that a review of the incident will follow. It stopped short of saying what that review might conclude, or whether an on-field look at the monitor would have changed the outcome.
United's fury, City's calm
Martinez didn't hide his frustration afterwards, insisting the officials had misapplied their own rules on a weekend that cost his side three points at home: "we have to go home with this injustice." Manager Michael Carrick said he was confused by an explanation he called staggering, adding that the decision would not change United's season but had shaped the outcome of the game itself. City boss Enzo Maresca offered the shortest reaction of anyone involved, saying simply that he thought the goal was clearly onside. Only one of those positions has since been contradicted by the body that oversees the officials.
A second contested call: Foden's red
The goal arrived in a match already shaped by controversy. Phil Foden was shown a straight red card in the 23rd minute after kicking out at Bruno Fernandes' body while the United captain was on the ground, having tripped the City midfielder moments earlier. Replays showed Fernandes had kicked Foden in the back first, prompting the retaliation that got Foden sent off - VAR checked the incident and upheld the on-field red without booking Fernandes. Roy Keane was blunt about where he thought the blame lay: "Fernandes is the one who is violent here, I don't think Foden should have a red card." Johnson noted that guidance on what counts as violent conduct rather than petulance has shifted over the years - enough, he said, that David Beckham's kick on Diego Simeone at the 1998 World Cup would not result in a sending off under today's standard. Applying that same shifted guidance to Fernandes' kick on Foden, Johnson judged it a yellow-card offence at most - one VAR has no power to act on, since a video review can't upgrade a card once an incident is judged to fall short of violent conduct.
Echoes of Norgaard
This isn't the first time an offside player's proximity to the ball, rather than a touch, has caused this exact confusion. Johnson pointed to a February 2023 fixture between Arsenal and Brentford, where a goal involving an offside Christian Norgaard was allowed to stand under similar circumstances. The recurrence suggests the ambiguity in this part of the law isn't a one-off glitch in a single VAR booth, but a pattern that keeps producing the same argument whenever a player in an offside position goes close to the ball without getting a touch on it.
Pro Ref's promised review will show whether Sunday's admission changes how these marginal, no-touch offside positions get treated in future, or whether United are left with an apology that alters nothing about the result on the pitch.
Frequently Asked Questions
Pro Ref said VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of Enzo Fernandez's offside position and should have sent referee Michael Oliver to review it on the pitch, rather than the goal itself being incorrectly awarded.
No. VAR's review found Haaland was played onside by a deflection off Patrick Dorgu's boot, and Pro Ref has not disputed that part of the decision.
The offside law can penalise a player for clearly attempting to play a nearby ball if that attempt impacts an opponent, even without contact. Fernandez's dive close to Martinez is the basis for that argument.
VAR upheld the on-field red card, but pundits including Roy Keane argued Bruno Fernandes' initial kick on Foden should have carried its own punishment.
Pro Ref says a review of the incident will take place, though it hasn't said what that review could change about the result or future decisions.
Research: This article uses the archived evidence supplied for this story. Story inspiration: BBC Sport's original report.
