ONE TOUCH SUMMARY
- Erling Haaland's goal stood despite Enzo Fernández being in an offside position and interfering with play, which VAR Matt Donohue failed to spot.
- VAR correctly upheld the Sunderland penalty against Arsenal after reviewing Dan Ballard and Ezri Konsa's shirt-pulling incident in the box.
- Referees have started the season well overall, with improved management of holding offences, goal-kicks, and throw-ins despite individual errors.
- Matt Donohue admitted his error in not penalising Fernández's interference, acknowledging he is human but will learn from the mistake.
- Chris Foy defends the broader standard of officiating this season, noting increased demands on referees and generally sound decision-making.
ONE TOUCH INSIGHT
VAR’s weekend showed a stark split: it correctly upheld the Sunderland penalty against Arsenal, yet it allowed Erling Haaland’s derby winner to stand despite a clear offside infringement.
When Haaland scored, the semi‑automated system flagged Enzo Fernández as onside, but Fernández had already challenged Lisandro Martínez for the crossed ball, making a clear attempt to play it and affecting Martínez’s ability to defend the cross. The laws require disallowing a goal when an offside player interferes with an opponent, and Matt Donohue’s VAR missed that judgement.
In contrast, the Sunderland penalty stood after Stuart Attwell’s VAR confirmed John Brooks’s on‑field decision; Ezri Konsa’s hold on Dan Ballard was obvious enough to survive a check‑complete review, showing the system works when the error is clear and obvious.
The next VAR review of an offside involvement situation will show whether the PRO has tightened its protocol.
WHY IT MATTERS
This story highlights the ongoing challenges and evolving role of VAR in modern football, showing both its potential to correct errors and its limitations when human judgment fails. It underscores that while technology assists, the final call still relies on officials interpreting complex situations like offside interference and holding in the box.
Erling Haaland
ST
Norway
Strengths
- ✓Exceptional timing and anticipation in the box
- ✓Clinical finishing with both feet and head
- ✓Ability to hold up play and bring others into the game
- ✓Relentless pressing from the front
- ⚠Can he maintain this goal-scoring rate if teams double-team him more consistently?
- ⚠Does his reliance on service limit his effectiveness in games where City struggle to create chances?
TACTICAL FIT
Haaland's ability to score despite defensive pressure and offside traps reflects his elite positioning and timing, forcing opponents to defend deeper and risk leaving space in behind. His presence alone disrupts defensive shape, making him a constant threat even when not directly involved in the buildup.
THE DEBATE
Should VAR intervene more aggressively in offside interference cases like Fernández's?
Matt Donohue is only human and made a mistake, but, in general, referees have started well this season
Mon 14 Sep 2026 15.00 EDT Last modified on Mon 14 Sep 2026 17.27 EDT
There was a disappointing outcome on a big decision in the Manchester derby and no one will feel it more than the video assistant referee, Matt Donohue. On Sunday night, Pro Ref confirmed that Donohue had made a mistake in allowing Erling Haaland’s goal in City’s 1-0 victory to stand when Enzo Fernández had been in an offside position.
When a VAR considers a decision such as this they start from the point at which the goal is scored and work backwards. Here, when Haaland scores, the flag is raised by the assistant referee for offside. The VAR automatically checked that on-field decision and used a semi‑automated system to show Haaland was onside. The decision was then made to overturn the call and award the goal.
‘An error of judgement’: Pro Ref admits mistake in awarding Haaland’s derby winner Read more
Before Haaland scores, however, an offside Fernández, marked by Lisandro Martínez, has challenged for the crossed ball with a diving header. The VAR needs to look at this aspect and make a two-part assessment. The first question is: does Fernández make a clear attempt to play the ball? The second: did that action affect the ability of Martínez to defend the cross? In this case, the answer to both questions was yes. The goal should not have been awarded.
I think Donohue looked at the Fernández situation and did not recognise it was an offence. He is a highly skilled VAR but referees are human and the fact he has got it wrong will hurt. He will learn from it but I would defend the performance of referees more broadly this season.
We’re 39 games into the campaign and they have started really well. We’ve seen some very good examples of officials dealing with holding offences, the ball is in play for longer and referees are managing goal-kicks and throw‑ins too. More stuff is thrown at them every season to deal with.
In the game at Manchester United, Haaland’s goal wasn’t the only incident to cause debate with a real split of opinion on what sanctions should have been imposed. With regards to the coming together between Bruno Fernandes and Phil Foden, which led to the City player being sent off, I’ve heard two reds, two yellows and two dustings down.
Let’s be clear: Foden sticks his studs into Fernandes’s midriff after the United captain had kicked at him with a toe. Michael Oliver shows Foden a deserved red card for violent conduct. Fernandes had provoked Foden by moving his right toe into Foden’s backside but in my opinion, had Oliver seen it, he would have given Fernandes a yellow card because it was a pretty petulant act of unsporting behaviour. Whereas Foden’s kick was violent conduct, I would argue Fernandes’s was not.
The laws on violent conduct describe when a player “uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball”. Did Foden use excessive force or brutality against an opponent? I think he did. But Fernandes didn’t. There was no brutality in that. There was no force. Clearly, the referee didn’t see the act of petulance but in terms of the bigger decision the officials got it correct. Even Enzo Maresca said in his press conference that Foden was rightly sent off.
The previous day there was another incident with lots of noise around it: the decision to award Sunderland a penalty against Arsenal. Dan Ballard and Ezri Konsa go to ground in the Arsenal box and the verdict from John Brooks was penalty kick. You could quite clearly see that Konsa was holding Ballard and really focusing only on his opponent and not the ball. The VAR, Stuart Attwell, then checked the decision and had to determine whether the referee made a clear and obvious error.
Ballard has got a little bit of Konsa’s shirt too and there’s a bit of tugging but that in itself, with all the bits and bobs going on, doesn’t jump out as a clear and obvious error, so they stay with the on-field decision. What is important to note is the light touch from VARs this season.
Lots of people will say penalty. Others will say not for me. Attwell was right to say check complete, confirming the penalty. If a penalty hadn’t been awarded, however, there would have been no intervention either because it’s not a clear and obvious error. It’s what we would term a check complete either way.
Chris Foy is a former Premier League referee
AI-assisted · generated from The Guardian reporting, not editor reviewed
