PGMOL has issued a shocking verdict on Erling Haaland’s controversial goal against Manchester United, representing a historic first for such a ruling…

PGMOL made a surprising decision regarding Erling Haaland’s controversial goal against Manchester United, marking the first instance in history of such a ruling.

PGMOL has made history with their decision on Erling Haaland’s contentious winner in the Manchester derby, where Man City triumphed 1-0 at Old Trafford.

Erling Haaland’s disputed winning goal in the Manchester derby, which saw Man City secure a 1-0 victory at Old Trafford, led the refereeing body Pro Ref to admit an “error of judgment” in granting the goal.

Haaland’s decisive goal in Sunday’s Manchester derby was surrounded by controversy, leaving several questions unanswered.

Initially, the striker’s goal was ruled out for offside on the field, but VAR later reversed this decision.

The VAR officials concluded that Haaland was kept onside by Manchester United defender Patrick Dorgu. However, Enzo Fernandez of Manchester City was in an offside position while attempting to play the ball before it reached Haaland.

Has Pro Ref provided an explanation for the goal’s approval?

Pro Ref, the Professional Game Referees previously known as PGMOL or PGMO, acknowledged on Sunday night that an error occurred in awarding City’s winning goal.

While they recognized “an error of judgment,” their statement only provided a partial rationale for the erroneous goal approval.

They admitted that the goal should have been disallowed due to Fernandez’s offside position, stating: “On this occasion, the VAR did not recognize the likely impact of his position.”

However, the critical question of why the VAR did not consider the influence of a player in an offside position, just six yards from the goal and making a diving header between two opponents, remains unresolved.

Could the oversight have occurred because the VAR was concentrating on whether Fernandez played the ball?

This currently seems to be the most plausible explanation.

In their mid-game post on X, Match Centre explained the decision by stating: “The VAR also determined that although Fernandez was in an offside position, he did not play the ball.”

During Sky Sports’ match coverage, replays were shown of the VAR team seemingly examining whether Fernandez made contact with the ball as it passed through the six-yard box.

So, did the VAR become sidetracked by focusing on a technicality that was irrelevant, considering the offside rule clearly indicates that a player can be offside even if they do not touch the ball?

Why did the Pro Ref statement indicate that the goal should have been sent for an on-field review? According to Pro Ref, the initial offside call was made against Erling Haaland, who was actually onside.

The review then shifted to Fernandez, who was correctly identified as being in an offside position by the VAR team.

The issue arose when they seemingly, and incorrectly, concentrated solely on whether he touched the ball.

However, the VAR could not confirm that the goal was justly disallowed due to the Fernandez offside, as it was based on the incorrect reason of the Haaland offside.

This led to Pro Ref’s claim that the VAR should have requested referee Michael Oliver to conduct an on-field review, where Oliver would have been tasked with making a subjective judgment on whether Fernandez influenced the play.

Was Lammens also affected by Fernandez? Yes. Replays of Haaland’s goal reveal that the Manchester United goalkeeper reacted to Fernandez, raising his arms in anticipation of a header and losing his balance as Haaland struck the ball.

However, Martinez had already been influenced by Fernandez’s positioning, meaning the goal should have been disallowed regardless of whether Lammens was distracted by Fernandez’s attempt to play the ball.

Was the on-field decision incorrect? Yes and no – yes, because the offside was called against an onside player, and no, because the goal should have been disallowed for offside.

So, the VAR was unable to definitively rule out the goal?

No. Since the on-field decision was against Haaland, the only appropriate action, if the procedure was strictly adhered to, was to request the referee to conduct an on-field review.

Who served as the VAR?

The VAR for Sunday’s match was Matt Donohue.

Although Donohue has officiated only four Premier League games, he possesses considerable experience as a VAR. In the 2025/26 season, he acted as the VAR for 24 Premier League matches and served as Assistant VAR in six others.

Did the officials also overlook the VAR check?

One lingering question from the Manchester derby is whether the officials forgot about the VAR check when deciding how much added time to allocate at the end of the match.

Haaland’s goal was netted at 59 minutes and 24 seconds. After the lengthy review, play resumed at 63 minutes and 15 seconds. However, despite this delay and several others throughout the half, only five minutes were added on.