Erling Haaland’s derby goal was awarded after VAR found him onside. The separate controversy concerns whether Enzo Fernández, who did not touch the cross, interfered with an opponent from an offside position.
That distinction matters because touching the ball is not the only way to commit an offside offence. The rules also cover certain actions that affect an opponent’s ability to play it.
Manchester City’s match report confirms the 1–0 win at Old Trafford on 13 September. Anadolu’s report of the subsequent refereeing statement says Pro Ref acknowledged that VAR should have recommended an on-field review of Fernández’s involvement.
Sources: https://live.mancity.com/news/mens/manchester-united-premier-league-september-2026-199th-manchester-derby-report-63924900 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/sports/premier-league-referees-body-admits-mistake-over-haalands-derby-winner/4056267
What does Law 11 require?
IFAB separates being in an offside position from committing an offence. Position alone is insufficient.
A player can nevertheless be penalised without a touch if they challenge an opponent for the ball, clearly obstruct an opponent’s view, or attempt to play a nearby ball in a way that affects an opponent. An obvious action that clearly affects an opponent’s ability to play the ball can also qualify.
Those conditions require assessment of the action and its effect. A missed attempt does not automatically mean an offence, just as the absence of contact does not automatically clear the player.
Source: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/offside/
Why checking Haaland was only one question
The scorer’s position and a team-mate’s involvement are separate issues. Establishing that Haaland was onside answers the first. It does not independently answer whether another attacker committed an offence earlier in the same move.
According to Anadolu’s account of the statement, Pro Ref said the likely impact of Fernández’s position had not been recognised and that the incident would be reviewed. This article attributes that statement to the agency report; it does not claim access to unpublished referee audio.
What would a useful explanation show?
A useful review would identify the relevant action, the opponent affected and the reason that impact met or failed the Law 11 test. Merely repeating that a player did not touch the ball leaves the central question unanswered.
There is no need to invent a different offside rule to explain the dispute. The important distinction is between measuring position and judging involvement.