Lisandro Martínez calls Haaland goal decision an injustice after controversial Manchester derby

Manchester United lost the derby. They also lost their patience with the officials. A 1-0 defeat to Manchester City at Old Trafford on September 13 turned on a single VAR decision that has since become the latest flashpoint in English football’s never-ending argument about technology, offside interpretations, and whether anyone actually understands the rules anymore.

Erling Haaland’s 59th-minute goal, initially chalked off for offside, was reinstated after a VAR review determined that Enzo Fernández, who was standing in an offside position, did not interfere with play. United defender Lisandro Martínez was unequivocal in his assessment of that call.

“I think he was offside. Now we have to go home with this injustice.”

What actually happened

Phil Foden received a red card in the opening stages, leaving City to play with ten men for more than an hour. That should have tilted the contest decisively in United’s favor.

Haaland found the net just before the hour mark, capitalizing on a deflected cross from Josko Gvardiol, only for the linesman’s flag to go up. The on-field call was offside.

Then VAR intervened. The review determined that Haaland had been played onside by Patrick Dorgu. The more contentious element was Fernández’s positioning. He was clearly in an offside position, but the question was whether he interfered with play. VAR concluded he didn’t. The goal stood.

The Premier League Match Centre confirmed the decision during the game.

Carrick calls it an obvious error

Manager Michael Carrick described the VAR decision regarding Fernández as “staggering,” pointing to Fernández’s proximity to the ball as evidence that he was clearly influencing the play. He labeled it an obvious error, the kind of mistake that shouldn’t survive a video review, let alone be created by one.

Martínez also argued that Fernández’s offside positioning influenced his defensive duties and allowed Haaland space to score.

The bigger picture for VAR and the Premier League

The Fernández situation illustrates a recurring tension in how the “interfering with play” clause is interpreted. The rule holds that a player in an offside position only commits an offside offense if they become actively involved in play by interfering with an opponent, playing the ball, or gaining an advantage from being in that position.

You can construct a coherent argument that Fernández didn’t touch the ball and didn’t physically block a defender’s movement. You can also construct an equally coherent argument that a City player standing in an offside position, in close proximity to the ball, inherently affects how United’s defenders react and position themselves. Both arguments have merit. Only one gets to win.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.