VAR did not even consider if Fernandez was offside - Webb

[Direct summary of what happened]

Howard Webb, the head of refereeing in English football, has conceded that the video assistant referee (VAR) did not examine whether Enzo Fernández was in an offside position when Erling Haaland scored the late winner in Sunday’s Manchester derby. Webb’s admission makes official what viewers and pundits have been debating: the VAR review that confirmed Haaland’s goal did not include an offside check on the lead-up to the strike.

The goal settled one of the season’s most closely watched fixtures and immediately sparked outrage among the losing side’s supporters, who insist a full VAR process should have examined every possible infringement. Webb’s statement has intensified scrutiny of the VAR system and the decision-making protocols used in high-stakes Premier League matches.

Why It Matters

This admission matters for three reasons. First, it undermines public faith in the VAR process: supporters expect VAR to act as a safety net that picks up clear errors, including offside positions that directly affect goals. Second, the integrity of a match between the city’s biggest clubs — often with major implications for the title race and Champions League qualification — means any perceived inconsistency has amplified consequence. Finally, the admission raises questions about procedural rigour within the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) and whether current workflows are robust enough to prevent similar oversights.

When VAR reviews fail to consider an obvious line of enquiry, it fuels the long-standing narrative that VAR is inconsistent. That scepticism not only impacts how fans perceive referees’ neutrality, it also pressures governing bodies to either tighten processes or produce greater transparency around how decisions are reached.

[Relevant background / context subtopic]

VAR was introduced to eliminate clear and obvious errors on match-changing incidents: goals, penalties, direct red cards and mistaken identity. In the Premier League, VAR’s remit traditionally includes checking for fouls, handballs and offside in the build-up to goals. The process is intended to be systematic: the VAR checks the on-field decision against available footage, communicates with the referee, and, if necessary, recommends an on-field review.

Despite these principles, the application of VAR has been repeatedly criticised for inconsistency. Decisions often hinge on subjective judgements — was contact “clear and obvious”? Is a fractional offside marginal or decisive? These are thorny questions but, crucially, the system is supposed to at least consider each relevant factor when a goal is under scrutiny. Webb’s revelation that offside was not considered at all in this case suggests the review was narrower than it should have been.

Technology itself has been evolving. Semi-automated offside technology — now used in some competitions — promises faster, more objective assessments by tracking player movement automatically. But the Premier League’s VAR relies on a combination of human interpretation and camera evidence. That mix can leave room for human error, either through oversight or judgement calls that are later questioned by millions watching.

Historically, high-profile VAR controversies have led to incremental changes: clearer communication from VAR teams, more training for match officials, and occasional tweaks to the protocol. Yet each widely disputed decision revives calls for deeper reform — from introducing fully automated checks to publishing full VAR rationale in real time. Webb’s admission will almost certainly reinvigorate those debates.

Public reaction after the derby was swift. Supporters of the team denied the winner and commentators called for a fuller explanation of exactly what the VAR team did and why. There is also a pragmatic angle: clubs and managers are unlikely to pursue formal appeals to overturn match results unless there is evidence of a systemic error or violation of protocol. The football authorities rarely post-match change results, preferring instead to investigate and, if necessary, adjust processes for the future.

What Happens Next

There are several likely next steps. Internally, PGMOL will conduct a review of the specific VAR checks carried out for the goal. That will involve examining the communications between the VAR and the on-field referee and establishing why offside was not reviewed. Webb’s admission makes it probable that this will be a formal review rather than a routine post-match note.

Publicly, supporters and media will demand greater transparency. Expect calls for the release of the VAR footage and audio — whether the PGMOL will oblige is unclear, but pressure will grow for clearer, more immediate explanations of contentious decisions. The governing bodies may respond with a statement clarifying what was and was not considered, and why.

From a rules and policy perspective, the incident adds weight to proposals for change. That could include tighter protocols ensuring offside checks are automatic whenever a goal is under review, additional training for VAR operators, or accelerated adoption of semi-automated offside systems to reduce human oversight. Any substantive change would take time — technology must be tested, officials trained, and stakeholders consulted — but the political will for reform increases after high-profile mistakes.

For the clubs involved, the practical outcome is simple: the result is almost certain to stand. Overturning a game result is extremely rare and typically requires a clear regulatory breach, not just an error of omission. What may follow instead are public relations battles, heated exchanges in the media, and renewed demands from teams and fans for an overhaul of the VAR process.

Finally, this will be a moment that referees’ leadership cannot ignore. Webb’s candid acknowledgement of an incomplete review raises the bar on expectations for accountability. If football’s governing elements are to retain supporters’ trust, they must show not only that they are investigating, but also that they are implementing measures to prevent a repeat.