Pro Ref admits VAR error over Haaland derby winner

Premier League refereeing body Pro Ref has acknowledged a judgement error over Erling Haaland's winning goal for Manchester City against Manchester United, BBC Sport reported. It said the video assistant referee should have recommended an on-field review and confirmed it had contacted United.

Watch the highlights:

Haaland converted Josko Gvardiol's cross at Old Trafford in the 60th minute. The goal was initially disallowed for offside, then awarded after VAR established that Patrick Dorgu's boot kept the striker onside. The controversy concerned Enzo Fernandez, who attempted a diving header from an offside position without touching the ball.

According to the statement carried by the BBC, Pro Ref said VAR had failed to recognise the likely effect of Fernandez's position. His lack of contact with the ball meant the potential offence required a subjective assessment rather than only a check of player positions.

IFAB's Law 11 distinguishes between being in an offside position and committing an offence. A player is not penalised for position alone. However, interference with an opponent can constitute an offence without a touch of the ball. One provision covers a clear attempt to play a nearby ball when that action affects an opponent.

The law also covers an obvious action that clearly affects an opponent's ability to play the ball, as well as obstructing an opponent's view or challenging for possession. Those provisions require officials to assess involvement in the play, rather than treating the absence of a touch as sufficient on its own to rule out an offence.

IFAB's VAR protocol makes a corresponding distinction in the review process. Checks confined to factual matters, including a player's offside position, are generally suitable for a VAR-only review. For subjective decisions such as interference at offside, an on-field review is appropriate. The referee retains responsibility for the final decision, whether informed by VAR or by viewing replay footage personally.

Pro Ref said it would review the incident. Its statement acknowledged an officiating error but did not announce the findings of that further examination.