By This Hour World News Desk
Two video-assistant referees involved in the review of Erling Haaland’s winning goal in Manchester City’s 1-0 derby victory over Manchester United have reportedly been left out of the following weekend’s Premier League appointments. The reported omissions place fresh attention on a decision that changed the outcome of one of English football’s most closely watched fixtures: a goal first ruled out for offside, then allowed after a video review.
Matt Donohue, who served as VAR for the match, was not selected for any of the next weekend’s league games, the supplied account says. Blake Antrobus, the assistant VAR, was also given no assignment. The account further says that the refereeing body Pro Ref later accepted that VAR had been wrong to permit Haaland’s decisive second-half strike to stand.
The immediate consequence is more significant than a routine alteration to an appointments list. City’s one-goal win remained the stated result, while the officials who handled the review were reportedly removed from the next available set of Premier League duties. The account presents those decisions as a response to an acknowledged mistake rather than as an indication that the result of the derby would be revisited.
A review reversed the original offside decision
The sequence described in the supplied report begins with Haaland’s second-half goal being disallowed by the on-field decision for offside. Video review then led to the goal being awarded after VAR judged Haaland himself to be onside. In a match decided 1-0, that reversal was not a peripheral intervention: it supplied the only goal and therefore settled the contest in City’s favour.
The later assessment cited in the account does not say that Haaland’s own position was the sole question. Instead, it says the review failed to account for the effect of teammate Enzo Fernandez, who had attempted to play the ball while in an offside position. That distinction matters because the reported error concerns the involvement of another player in the attacking move, rather than simply a reassessment of where Haaland stood when the relevant pass was made.
On the information available, the report gives no fuller account of the video evidence examined, the precise sequence of the attack, or the reasoning through which the review reached its initial conclusion. It does, however, describe a clear change in the refereeing body’s position: a goal allowed after the video check was subsequently identified as one that should not have been allowed. That reported admission is the basis for the officials’ apparent absence from the next weekend’s appointments.
Webb and the management team reportedly made the call
The decision to omit Donohue and Antrobus was reportedly taken by Howard Webb, described in the supplied account as chief refereeing officer, together with the refereeing management team. That attribution places responsibility above the match-level officials and indicates that the response came through the body responsible for managing appointments.
No formal disciplinary label is provided in the account. It says Donohue was not selected for the forthcoming weekend and that Antrobus received no assignment, but it does not specify whether either official had been suspended, withdrawn from consideration, rested, reassigned to non-match work, or dealt with under another internal process. Calling the decision a suspension would therefore go beyond the supplied information.
The reported timing also leaves an important practical limit on what can be concluded. Neither man was expected to return to duty until at least after the international break. That suggests the omission was expected to cover more than one immediate round of matches, but it does not establish a fixed end date, a defined sanction, or any assurance about appointments after the break. A return after that point was described only as a possibility, not a confirmed outcome.
Appointments in elite football can reflect operational needs as well as performance reviews. Yet the supplied account explicitly connects these omissions with the derby decision and with Pro Ref’s reported acceptance that the video review was wrong. The linkage is therefore central to the report, even though the underlying terms of the officials’ absence have not been detailed.
The error leaves the derby result in place
For Manchester United, the significance lies in the narrowness of the defeat and in the fact that the disputed ruling concerned City’s only goal. The supplied account says United were 13th in the English top flight after the match. It lists a League Cup game against Brighton on Wednesday as United’s next fixture, followed by a Premier League visit to Fulham on Sunday.
City’s schedule, as given in the same account, included a cup tie at home to Norwich City on Thursday and a league match against Sunderland on Sunday. City were level on points with leaders and defending champions Arsenal, the report says. Those details illustrate why an officiating decision in a derby can carry consequences beyond the immediate argument over one attacking passage: the league standings and the competitive calendar continue while the officials’ work is reviewed.
But neither the reported admission of error nor the omission of the VAR team is presented as a mechanism for changing the scoreline. The source material refers to City’s 1-0 victory as the completed result. It contains no claim that the Premier League, Pro Ref, City or United planned to reopen the match, alter the standings, order a replay, or take any other action affecting the result. The available account supports a personnel response, not a sporting remedy for United.
That separation is likely to be difficult for supporters to accept in a match where the disputed decision proved decisive. Still, it is an important one. The report identifies a review error and a subsequent appointments decision; it does not provide evidence of any process that would undo the consequences of the goal on the field.
Key questions concern the explanation and the return date
The account’s description of Fernandez’s attempted involvement offers the core explanation for why Pro Ref reportedly regarded the decision as wrong. Even so, it leaves substantial unanswered questions about how the review was conducted. There is no supplied account of whether the issue was identified during the live review, what images or angles were considered, whether the on-field officials were given any additional information, or why the final assessment differed from the first VAR judgment.
There is also no reported comment from Donohue or Antrobus. The supplied material does not state whether either official accepted the assessment, challenged it, or offered an explanation. Nor does it describe any individual findings about their respective roles. As a result, the fact that both received no weekend assignment should not be read as evidence that they carried identical responsibility for every part of the decision.
Similarly, the reported involvement of Webb and the management team establishes who made the appointments call only as described by the supplied account. It does not reveal whether there was a wider review, whether any guidance would change, or whether other officials involved in the match were assessed. The report makes no claim of broader alterations to VAR procedure.
The available information is also limited to a single secondary account of events. It has not been independently corroborated, and no direct statement from Pro Ref, Webb, Donohue or Antrobus is included in the supplied material. The reported omission from appointments, the stated error assessment and the expected timing of any return should therefore be treated as reported facts rather than as independently verified conclusions.
What is clearest within that account is the sequence: a goal initially ruled out was allowed after video review; the refereeing body later said the review was wrong because it did not consider Fernandez’s reported effect from an offside position; and the VAR and assistant VAR were then absent from the next weekend’s Premier League list. Beyond that sequence, the duration of their absence, the internal reasoning behind it and any longer-term response remain uncertain.
For further context on this subject, see Everton-United Preview Raises Squad Questions as Fixture Date Is Unclear.
Reporting notes
What is confirmed: Donohue and Antrobus reportedly received no weekend appointments. The account attributes the decision to Webb and the refereeing management team.
Why this matters: The disputed VAR reversal allowed the match’s only goal, while the reported response concerns officials rather than the result.
What remains unclear: The duration and formal nature of the officials’ absence, internal review details and any procedural follow-up were not provided. This report is based on one source and has not been independently corroborated.
