VAR Didn't Err in the Manchester Derby — It Exposed the Rules

The outrage over Erling Haaland’s winner at Old Trafford misses the point. VAR followed the letter of the law; the law itself is the scandal.

The Offside Law Has Become a Trap for Officials

Offside was once a simple rule: you cannot gain an advantage by being ahead of the last defender. Now it is a forensic puzzle involving “interfering with play,” “interfering with an opponent,” and “gaining an advantage.” Enzo Fernandez stood in an offside position but did not touch the ball. Did he impede anyone? Did he distract the goalkeeper? The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) later admitted the goal should have been disallowed, but that admission reveals not a VAR malfunction but a fundamental ambiguity in the law.

Compare this to the 2019 Champions League final, when Tottenham’s Moussa Sissoko was penalised for a handball that deflected off his chest. The rule was clear—arm in an unnatural position—but the outcome felt absurd. Since then, offside has become the new handball: a technicality that punishes defenders and attackers alike for things no one can see without a 20-camera setup. The Premier League’s own statistics show a 23% increase in offside interventions since 2021, yet public confidence in VAR has plummeted to 38%, according to a 2024 YouGov poll. The problem is not the technology; it is the rulebook it enforces.

The Derby Incident Was a Failure of Interpretation, Not Technology

Let’s be precise. In the 60th minute at Old Trafford, Haaland scored. The assistant referee flagged. VAR reviewed. Enzo Fernandez was in an offside position, but he did not touch the ball. The VAR, following the International Football Association Board’s (IFAB) guidelines, judged that Fernandez did not interfere with play. PGMOL later said the goal should have been disallowed because Fernandez’s presence affected Manchester United’s defence.

The contradiction is stark. The same laws that allow a goal when an offside player stands motionless also allow a goal when that player’s shadow falls on the goalkeeper’s line of sight. The law is not a science; it is a series of judgement calls that even the experts cannot agree on. Gary Neville called it a “shocker,” but Neville’s outrage should be directed at the law, not the officials. VAR gave the goal because the law, as written, permitted it. PGMOL’s apology is an admission that the law is unfit for purpose.

Why This Is Not a VAR Problem

The refereeing crisis in the Premier League is not about technology. It is about the rules that technology must enforce. Here are three reasons why:

Offside is no longer binary. The introduction of “interfering with an opponent” in 2016 turned a simple rule into a subjective quagmire. VAR cannot fix subjectivity; it only magnifies it.
PGMOL’s public apologies are meaningless. Since 2020, PGMOL has issued over 20 apologies for VAR errors. Each apology undermines confidence without changing the underlying law. Apologies are not reform.
Other leagues have adapted. The Dutch Eredivisie uses a simplified offside interpretation that prioritises the spirit of the law. The Premier League clings to a 100-page rulebook that even referees admit is unworkable.

The derby incident is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that values technical precision over common sense. The Premier League has an officiating emergency, but it is not a VAR emergency. It is a rules emergency.

The Counter-Argument: Clear and Obvious Errors Are Rare

The steel-man argument is this: VAR works. The derby error was a one-off, and PGMOL’s apology proves the system is self-correcting. Clear and obvious errors are rare, and the technology gets more decisions right than wrong.

This misses the point. VAR’s purpose is not to eliminate all errors; it is to eliminate clear and obvious ones. But when the law itself is ambiguous, “clear and obvious” becomes a matter of opinion. The derby incident was not a clear error; it was a debatable interpretation. PGMOL’s apology was not a correction; it was a capitulation to public pressure. The real error is that the Premier League has created a system where referees are forced to make judgements that no one can agree on. The solution is not more VAR; it is simpler rules.

Verdict: The Premier League Will Change the Offside Law Within Two Years

This column predicts that by the start of the 2026-27 season, the Premier League will adopt a simplified offside rule that eliminates the “interfering with play” clause. The change will be forced by a combination of continued VAR controversies, declining referee morale, and pressure from clubs who have lost points due to ambiguous decisions. The derby incident will be cited as the tipping point.

If the Premier League does not act, the consequences are predictable: more apologies, more outrage, and a further erosion of trust in the game’s governance. The rules are broken. VAR is merely the messenger. The Premier League must rewrite the law or accept that it has created a system where no one—not referees, not players, not fans—can agree on what is right.