Attempting to understand why Erling Haaland wasn’t offside for Manchester derby winner | OneFootball

The Manchester derby was decided by a solitary Erling Haaland goal – but there were many who felt it shouldn’t have counted due to offside.

There was plenty of controversy upon the first meeting of the Manchester rivals this season, with Phil Foden’s red card for kicking out at Bruno Fernandes – who went unpunished despite seeming to have done similar – a major talking point from the first half.

But it was the awarding of Haaland’s goal in the second half that will prove most divisive, especially with it being the only goal that decided the game in Manchester City‘s favour.

Haaland got on the end of a cross from Josko Gvardiol to finish at the back post, but the goal was initially ruled out by the referee on-field.

However, a VAR check saw the decision overturned and the goal allowed to stand – much to the bemusement of pretty much anyone viewing.

Not only did Haaland look offside when Gvardiol played his cross, but so did Enzo Fernandez, who made a clear attempt at a diving header before the ball flew over to the eventual scorer.

Upon closer inspection, Gvardiol’s cross did take a deflection off Patrick Dorgu, which may have reset the action. But was it enough of a deviation?

The official Premier League Match Centre account on X explained: “VAR checked the referee’s call of no goal for offside – and determined that Haaland was in an onside position and recommended that the goal was awarded.

“The VAR also deemed that while in an offside position, Fernandez didn’t play the ball.”

Their attached clip demonstrated that Dorgu’s toe was somehow playing Haaland offside, despite the naked eye suggesting otherwise from the wider angle. Semi-automated technology to the rescue?

Anyway, we’re pretty sure some legislation was brought in a few years ago to implicate anyone trying to play the ball from an offside position, regardless of whether they touched it or not. And Fernandez definitely tried to play it.

The laws of the game specify:

Yep, there it is. Point number three. “Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent.”

It’s the last part of that phrase that may have saved Fernandez from being offside. Most likely, the decision is that he didn’t impact an opponent – although Lisandro Martinez, who was his nearest marker, may have had a different view on that.

In the end, the goal was given and City held on to claim all three points. But the debates will rage on long after the full-time whistle.