Manchester United VAR controversy after Cunha goal stood

Michael Salisbury kept Matheus Cunha's goal standing after a lengthy VAR review in Manchester United's win over Nottingham Forest. The check took three minutes, then Salisbury went to the pitchside monitor for another minute before ruling that Bryan Mbeumo's handball was accidental. Gary Neville, on commentary, called it an absolute shocker.

How the decision was made

The key sequence started with Forest equalising through Morato, before Cunha scored two minutes later. That made the review even more prominent, because the goal came quickly after the game had swung back to level. VAR Matthew Donohue looked at the footage and recommended Salisbury check the monitor, and the final call was that the handball offence was accidental.

Neville was not buying it. He said: "I think that is an absolute shocker in every single way. It's ridiculous." He also pointed to the length of the review, saying VAR looked at it for three minutes and the referee then looked at it for another minute. That kind of process is exactly why these decisions end up dominating the conversation, even when the on-field ruling stands.

Why the row took over the result

The result finished 3-2 to Manchester United, with Nottingham Forest scoring twice and the Cunha goal helping decide the game. Cunha's 8.3 rating reflected a strong overall performance, while Bryan Mbeumo finished on 6.9 after being central to the disputed sequence and later scoring for United. Bruno Fernandes had the top United rating at 8.5, another sign that the match had more going on than the single controversy.

Salisbury's explanation was clear enough. He said: "After review, the decision of goal stands because the handball offence is accidental, therefore the final decision is goal." That is the official line, and it is the one that stands in the record. Neville's reaction shows why the episode will be remembered less for the goal itself than for how long it took to get there.

The next talking point is not whether the decision was debated, because it clearly was. It is how the officials handle a similar handball sequence the next time a close game turns on one incident.