What the Haaland Goal Tells Us About VAR

When Subjective Becomes Wrong: What the Haaland Derby Goal Tells Us About the Laws of the Game and VAR

The aftermath of Manchester City’s recent derby victory over Manchester United has once again placed football’s offside law and the role of VAR under intense scrutiny. In a rare move, the refereeing body, Pro Ref (formerly PGMOL), has publicly admitted that an “error of judgement” was made in awarding Erling Haaland’s winning goal at Old Trafford.

The incident is particularly noteworthy because it highlights a recurring tension within modern football officiating: the distinction between factual decisions, which technology can determine with precision, and subjective decisions, which remain dependent on human interpretation. While VAR successfully corrected one aspect of the decision, it failed to address another that ultimately proved decisive.

What Happened?

The goal arrived shortly after the hour mark of a fiercely contested Manchester derby. A cross from Josko Gvardiol found Erling Haaland at the back post, who converted from close range. The on-field decision was initially offside against Haaland. However, following a VAR review, technology established that Haaland was actually in an onside position, having been played onside by Patrick Dorgu’s trailing foot.

Ordinarily, that would have ended the discussion.

The complication arose because Enzo Fernandez was standing in an offside position and made an obvious attempt to play the ball as it travelled across the six-yard box. Although Fernandez did not touch the ball, his movement influenced the actions of Manchester United defender Lisandro Martinez, who was forced to react to Fernandez’s apparent attempt to make contact. Further, and key to this argument, Manchester Utd goalkeeper Senne Lammens reacted to the movement of Fernandez as the ball came across the face of goal. He (Lammens) instinctively raised his hands in anticipation of a touch or header from Fernandez.

VAR concluded that because Fernandez did not actually play the ball, no offside offence had occurred. The goal was therefore awarded. Hours later, Pro Ref accepted that this analysis was flawed and confirmed that VAR should have recommended an on-field review.

What Does the FA Handbook Say?

The relevant provisions are contained within Law 11 of the Laws of the Game, incorporated into the FA Handbook 2026-2027 and applied across professional football in England.

A player in an offside position commits an offence if they become involved in active play by:

• Interfering with play;
• Interfering with an opponent; or
• Gaining an advantage from being in that position.

Both “interfering with play” and “interfering with an opponent” are particularly important here. It includes circumstances where an offside player:

• clearly attempts to play a ball which is close when that action impacts an opponent; or
• challenges an opponent for the ball.

On the facts of this incident, the debate was never really about Haaland’s position. VAR correctly identified that he was onside. The real issue was whether Fernandez’s attempt to play the ball affected Martinez as well as Lammens, and therefore constituted interference with an opponent.

Pro Ref’s subsequent admission indicates that the answer should at least have been considered sufficiently arguable to warrant an on-field review by referee Michael Oliver.

The Difference Between Objective and Subjective Decisions

This incident serves as an excellent illustration of the distinction between objective and subjective decision-making under the modern VAR framework.

The determination that Haaland was onside was objective. Semi-automated offside technology and VAR were able to establish this using measurable data. In that respect, the system operated exactly as intended.

However, Fernandez’s involvement presented a subjective question. Did his actions affect an opponent? Did Martinez alter his positioning because Fernandez attempted to play the ball? Did Fernandez’s presence impact the goalkeeper or surrounding defenders?

Those questions cannot be answered by technology alone. They require judgement.

Ironically, VAR was introduced to reduce clear and obvious errors, yet when required to exercise subjective judgement, it concluded that its own governing body has subsequently acknowledged was incorrect.

Has the Regulatory Framework Been Overlooked?

Perhaps the more interesting question is not whether the officials made an error, but whether the current implementation of the laws sufficiently addresses situations of this nature.

The laws clearly contemplate an offside player interfering with an opponent without actually touching the ball. The difficulty lies in the threshold of proof required to establish that interference.

Where an offside player physically touches the ball, the offence is straightforward. Where the player merely moves towards it, interpretation becomes more difficult and inconsistency can arise.

The Haaland goal demonstrates that there remains a grey area between a player being “present” and a player actively impacting an opponent. While the laws attempt to define that distinction, their practical application continues to generate uncertainty among referees, VAR officials, players and supporters alike.

Indeed, the fact that experienced Premier League officials reviewed the footage and initially approved the goal before subsequently acknowledging an error suggests the current framework may not provide the level of clarity that elite football requires.

Lessons for VAR

The key lesson from this incident is not that VAR failed technologically. Rather, it failed in its human application. The semi-automated offside system correctly identified Haaland’s position. The mistake arose in the interpretation of Fernandez’s impact on opponents.

This reinforces a broader criticism of VAR that has persisted since its introduction. Technology is exceptionally effective at answering factual questions, but football remains a game of interpretation. Whenever judgement is involved, inconsistency remains inevitable.

For all the investment in technology, the most important component of the system is still the person operating it.

Takeaways

Pro Ref’s admission is unusual and should be welcomed. Transparency promotes confidence in the integrity of the game. However, the incident also demonstrates that football’s greatest officiating challenges are no longer technological.

The real issue lies in applying subjective laws consistently in high-pressure environments.

The Laws of the Game undoubtedly provide a framework capable of dealing with situations such as Fernandez’s involvement. The problem was not the absence of a rule but the failure to apply it correctly.

As football continues to refine VAR and semi-automated technology, this episode serves as a reminder that while technology can draw the lines, it cannot and should not replace judgement. And when that judgement is wrong, even the most sophisticated system in the world cannot guarantee the correct outcome.

The Haaland goal will ultimately be remembered for deciding a Manchester derby. For sports regulators, however, it may prove more significant as another example of the ongoing struggle to reconcile objective technology with subjective decision-making in modern football.

The information and opinions contained in this blog are for information only.  They are not intended to constitute advice and should not be relied upon or considered as a replacement for advice.  Before acting on any information contained in this blog, please seek a solicitor’s advice from Gilson Gray.