Pro Ref Admits Error Over Haaland's Goal in Manchester Derby
The 191st Manchester derby did not end when the whistle went at Old Trafford. It carried on into the night, into the VAR booths and boardrooms, until the refereeing body Pro Ref finally held up its hands.
Hours after Manchester City’s 1-0 win over Manchester United, Pro Ref publicly accepted it had made an “error of judgment” in allowing Erling Haaland’s decisive goal to stand – and confirmed that VAR should have sent referee and players back to the monitor.
The goal had already been through one twist on the pitch. Initially ruled out for offside, it was then awarded after a VAR check, with officials judging that Haaland had been played onside by United defender Patrick Dorgu.
But that was only half the story.
Enzo Fernandez, standing in an offside position, moved towards the ball as it flashed across the area before reaching Haaland at the back post. He never touched it, and that became the crux of the VAR’s decision. They focused on whether the City midfielder had made contact, and once they decided he hadn’t, the goal was given.
The laws say that is not enough.
By the book, a player in an offside position can still commit an offence without touching the ball if he interferes with an opponent – by challenging for the ball, attempting to play it in a way that affects a defender, obstructing a line of vision, or making an obvious action that clearly impacts an opponent’s ability to play.
Fernandez’s movement, replays showed, dragged the attention and body shape of Lisandro Martinez before Haaland arrived to finish. Under the law, that should have been enough to keep the flag up.
Pro Ref’s climbdown
In a detailed statement, Pro Ref laid out how the decision unravelled.
“Following the incident in the 60th minute of Sunday’s Premier League fixture between Manchester United and Manchester City at Old Trafford, we can provide clarification regarding Erling Haaland's awarded goal,” a spokesperson said.
They confirmed the on-field decision had been offside against Haaland, that VAR had correctly found the striker onside, and that the key judgement then shifted to Fernandez’s role.
“In the same attack, it was established that Enzo Fernandez did not play the ball and therefore that makes any offside offence subjective,” the statement continued. “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.”
The pressure finally told. United got their acknowledgment, if not the points.
Match Centre explanation under fire
Earlier, the Premier League Match Centre had tried to justify the decision in a post on X, stressing again that Fernandez did not touch the ball.
“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,” the explanation read.
That line of defence did not survive the night.
The offside law is explicit: playing the ball is not the only trigger. Interfering with an opponent can be enough, and the list of criteria – challenging, attempting to play, obstructing, making an obvious action that affects a defender – reads like a checklist of what Fernandez appeared to do in front of Martinez.
Neville saw it coming
Gary Neville, watching from the gantry for Sky Sports, had predicted the storm before Pro Ref’s statement dropped.
On co-commentary, he argued the officials were “wrong” to award the goal. Later, he went further, forecasting an admission from the refereeing body.
“We will see an apology from Pro Ref,” he told Sky Sports. “There is no doubt that Enzo is attempting to play the ball and putting Lisandro Martinez off.
“It's a really strange one. They'll recognise they got that wrong.”
On his podcast, Neville accused the officials of ignoring the law rather than misreading it.
“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.”
United fury
Inside the United camp, frustration hardened into anger.
Lisandro Martinez, the defender most directly affected by Fernandez’s movement, did not hold back in his post-match interview.
“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 a United side already under scrutiny, the sense of being wronged only deepened the sting of defeat.
Richards and Keane tear into decision
Micah Richards, the former City defender, dismissed the Match Centre’s focus on Fernandez not touching the ball as “a nonsense”.
Asked on Sky Sports whether Fernandez was clearly attempting to play the ball, Richards did not hesitate.
“One hundred per cent he is,” he said. “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 tactical issue: United’s defensive line.
“Fernandez is interfering with play,” he said. “Basically, United have been punished for holding a good line. 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.”
So the derby ends with a single goal, a single decision, and a single admission: the winner should not have stood. The table will not change, the scoreline will not be rewritten, but the next time a flag goes up and the cameras cut to Stockley Park, how much faith will anyone inside Old Trafford really have in what comes next?
