Haaland VAR Error Exposes Premier League’s Lack of Challenge System

Manchester City’s 1-0 derby victory at Old Trafford has intensified the debate over VAR after Pro Ref accepted that Erling Haaland’s decisive goal should not have stood. The review team failed to identify Enzo Fernández in an offside position, leaving Manchester United without an in-game mechanism to contest a decision that could carry major Premier League consequences.

Key takeaways

• Haaland’s winner against Manchester United was incorrectly allowed to stand in Sunday’s Premier League match.
• VAR officials Matt Donohue and Blake Antrobus had their 2 minute 29 second decision-making audio released on Tuesday.
• Pro Ref acknowledged the error within three hours of the final whistle.
• Fernández’s position could have affected Lisandro Martínez’s attempt to clear the ball and should have triggered an offside intervention.
• A manager-led challenge system has been proposed as a way to correct clear VAR failures during matches.

Derby error raises stakes for City and United

The mistake was not merely a technical failure. If City ultimately take the title by a margin of one or two points, Haaland’s goal may assume considerable importance in the final table. For United, the defeat added to their poorest Premier League opening in 34 years and could further damage Michael Carrick’s position should results not improve.

The central issue was Fernández’s involvement. Donohue and Antrobus did not consider whether the City midfielder was contesting the ball or impeding Martínez as the United defender tried to deal with the attacking phase. A correct application of the offside law would have ruled out the goal.

Sunday’s review took 149 seconds, yet the incorrect outcome remained in place. United had no formal right to request a further examination, even though Fernández’s position was visible within the incident. A challenge system could have allowed Carrick and his staff to flag the concern immediately and seek a fresh review before play resumed.

A case for limited manager challenges

VAR entered international football at the 2018 World Cup as a safeguard against major missed incidents, including unseen fouls and wrongful red-card decisions. It was intended to prevent the kind of uncorrected controversy represented by Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal against England at the 1986 World Cup.

However, the Old Trafford incident follows several prominent Premier League failures. Liverpool had a Luis Díaz goal incorrectly ruled out for offside against Tottenham Hotspur in October 2023, with VAR officials Darren England and Dan Cook later accepting a significant human error. Arsenal received a similar apology eight months earlier after Lee Mason failed to apply the offside process properly when Ivan Toney’s Brentford equaliser against the Gunners was permitted.

Those episodes, along with other errors since the Premier League adopted VAR in 2019-20, have fuelled calls for clubs to be given a restricted opportunity to intervene. In the NFL, coaches can challenge certain decisions by using a red flag, although unsuccessful appeals cost a timeout. Cricket captains have 15 seconds to seek a review, while tennis also operates with a limited review process.

A football version could permit one or two appeals per side in a match, with a penalty for a failed challenge. NFL teams receive at least two challenges, and can earn a third if one of their initial appeals succeeds. Such a change would need approval from FIFA and the International Football Association Board, rather than being introduced by the Premier League alone.

There would be concerns over further stoppages, but the Haaland review already consumed nearly two and a half minutes. An additional minute to ensure the correct decision would be difficult to dismiss, particularly when FIFA has allowed three-minute hydration intervals in each half at the World Cup this summer.

Some former players, including ex-United goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel, have argued that VAR should be removed entirely. Yet the system has helped officials reach the right outcome on most major decisions. The stronger case is not to abandon video review, but to give managers a narrowly defined route to challenge the rare but consequential errors that VAR itself fails to catch.