As instability in the Strait of Hormuz disrupts shipping, public discussion tends to focus on fuel prices and supplies. Less attention is paid to the people working on the ships.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) says more than 20,000 seafarers in the region have been affected, including people stranded on vessels unable to leave.

Their work supports much of everyday life. The global merchant fleet, meaning ships carrying commercial cargo, is staffed by nearly 1.9 million seafarers, while around 80% of international trade in goods travels by sea. Supply chains therefore depend partly on the wellbeing of this international workforce.

The danger has immediate human consequences. The IMO prepared a plan to evacuate about 6,000 seafarers and reported that an estimated 2,900 had left before it was paused. Its updated incident list records seafarers killed, injured or missing.

These figures document exposure and physical harm, but not the mental health effects on crews caught in the disruption. Existing research shows why prolonged danger and uncertainty are concerning. A systematic review of 63 studies associated poorer mental health among maritime workers with feeling unsafe, long or irregular hours, poor sleep, weak support, uncertain schedules and extended periods at sea.

Crew members may spend months living at their workplace, separated from family and sharing confined spaces. Ships operate around the clock, and rotating watches can disrupt sleep and the circadian rhythm, the body’s internal clock.

Research has linked these conditions to stress, depressive symptoms and burnout. The World Health Organization describes burnout as a work-related condition involving exhaustion, growing detachment or cynicism, and reduced effectiveness.

Conflict can intensify several pressures at once. In a survey of 319 seafarers who had sailed in the Black Sea conflict zone during the war in Ukraine, more than 70% reported that their safety had been at risk, 95% experienced increased stress or anxiety at least once, and almost 80% felt their mental health had been compromised. The study also identified sleep loss and reduced contact with family. More broadly, limited control over work, uncertain schedules and long periods at sea have been associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing.

Seafarers’ ability to refuse a hazardous route can depend on the specific agreement covering their vessel. On March 5, 2026, the International Transport Workers’ Federation and the Joint Negotiating Group designated the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman a “Warlike Operations Area”. Seafarers on covered vessels gained enhanced pay, doubled compensation for death or disability, and the right to refuse to enter the area and return home at the company’s expense, with compensation equal to two-month’s basic wage.

The seafarers’ union Nautilus, meanwhile, secured double pay for seafarers on Dutch-flagged vessels. But such protections reach only those the agreement covers.

Pay belongs in this wider discussion of wellbeing. A review of 24 studies linked an imbalance between workers’ effort and rewards to burnout. Higher pay, family benefits and training opportunities were associated with greater job satisfaction. Because the studies examined workers at only one point in time, they cannot show that low or unequal pay directly causes mental illness.

International labour rules offer minimum protections. The Maritime Labour Convention, in force since 2013, covers employment terms, accommodation, healthcare and social protection. Its binding wage standard requires wages to be paid at least monthly, with an account of what is owed and paid. A separate, non-binding guideline supports equal pay for work of equal value on the same ship without discrimination, but this is not a universally enforceable rule.

Large differences within the same crew remain possible. Research aboard merchant ships found that some seafarers had permanent contracts, higher monthly pay and shorter tours, while colleagues doing the same tasks earned less on temporary contracts and stayed at sea longer. Nationality and residence can determine which labour market and agreement applies.

In two linked decisions in August 2025, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights found that two shipowners had unlawfully discriminated against Filipino and Indonesian seafarers by paying them substantially less than European colleagues doing comparable work. One European night cook earned at least twice as much as an Indonesian colleague. In the Filipino case, the Institute accepted that the difference contributed to a sense of class division on board.

The Institute is an official equality body rather than a court, and its decisions are non-binding. Even so, the cases show how unequal pay can reinforce status divisions among people living and working together under the same conditions.

Protecting seafarers’ mental health requires action throughout their working lives. Employers should provide safe staffing and adequate rest, reliable contact with home, access to medical and psychological care, supportive management and a genuine right to leave dangerous areas. Clear wage bands and independent ways to challenge discriminatory pay would strengthen these protections. Overtime and hazard pay should reflect the work and risk involved, regardless of nationality or residence.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis is an immediate test of seafarer welfare. Longer-term preparedness will depend on whether governments and the shipping industry treat mental health, physical safety and fair employment as connected responsibilities before workers reach a crisis point.

The US Open sees Alexander Zverev and Ben Shelton battle it out in New York tonight

Alexander Zverev and Ben Shelton meet in the final of the US Open at Flushing Meadows tonight.

Top seed German Zverev will be favourite to secure the Grand Slam title but with home support likely to be in Sheldon’s corner, there could be an upset this evening.

“For me, this whole tournament has been uncharted territory,” said Shelton, who will likely be roared on by a 24,000-strong crowd in New York.

“I’m in positions I’ve never been in before. I’ve beaten guys I’ve never beaten before.”

Shelton has lost to Zverev in their last five meetings and he has never beaten the German.

Zverev, the top seed, reached the final by beating Karen Khachanov 6-3, 7-6, 7-6 in the last four. Shelton beat Frances Tiafoe in four sets in the other semi.

Tonight’s final is set to offer a record-breaking prize fund, with the world’s best tennis players competing for a share of $108 million (£80m).

The men’s and women’s singles champions will each receive $5.5million (£4.1million), making it the biggest winner’s prize in tennis history.

Last night, Elena Rybakina was crowned US Open winner in the women’s competition, beating Aryna Sabalenka, the No 1 seed and current champion.

The US Open will continue to offer equal prize money in the men’s and women’s singles competitions, with identical payments available to players at every stage of the tournament.

The match is set to get under way at 7pm UK time. Here is the prize money pot broken down for the singles competitions.

US Open singles prize money

First round: $140,000

Second round: $190,000

Third round: $290,000

Round of 16: $480,000

Quarter-finals: $780,000

Semi-finals: $1,450,000

Runner-up: $2,800,000

Winner: $5,500,000

Venezuela Fury and Noah Price are said to have quit I’m A Celebrity The Wild Frontier just days into filming, giving ITV bosses a major headache

I’m A Celebrity’s latest spinoff show was thrust into chaos just days into filming amid reports Venezuela Fury and her husband Noah Price quit. The duo are said to have called time on their journey in Canada, telling producers they don’t want to carry on.

It’s claimed the 16-year-old daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury and her new husband, 18, decided the show simply isn’t for them and walked away from the show days into filming. ,

Reports suggest bosses quickly moved to bring in a reality TV favourite and her pal. A source said Venezuela and Noah didn’t want to carry on.

Advertisement

The insider told The Sun: “They both realised early on it was too much. The challenges are tough, the living conditions aren’t easy. They both gave it their best shot but when push came to shove, it all got too much and they walked out.”

Saying the decision will make “amazing television,” the source said it “caused a headache for producers.” But it’s reported 2025 Love Island victor Toni Laites and her best friend Marielle were sought as their replacement.

The source said bosses felt Toni was the perfect person to step in. “She has a lot of grit and determination and will show that when she starts filming,” they said.

The show will see celebrities competing in pairs, with friends, relatives and couples taking on Bushtucker-style trials together before facing elimination as a duo. While the lineup is yet to have been confirmed by ITV, a number of famous faces were seen jetting off last week.

At the airport, Jeremy Lynch and Paul Olima were seen laughing as the prepared to board their flight to Vancouver for the show. Jeremy smiled and laughed as he walked through the airport, donning a grey sweatpants as he wheeled his blue hand luggage beside him. He also tried to disguise himself by hiding behind a pair of rose tinted glasses and a black hat.

While the official lineup is being kept quiet, presenters Ant and Dec did admit two celebrities were banned. Speaking on their podcast, the Geordie duo joked Jimmy Bullard and David Haye are banned from the latest series.

On their Hanging Out with Ant & Dec podcast, the presenters discussed the show and Dec said: “We are doing a new spinoff series of I’m A Celebrity called I’m A Celebrity… The Wild Frontier.”

After explaining the concept of the show, he added: “They will enter as a pair, compete as a pair, and eventually leave as a pair. “And then it will all build up to a live grand final in London…” at which point Ant jumped in and joked: “What could possibly go wrong?”

Laughing, Dec insisted: “Jimmy Bullard and David Haye are barred from the series.” Ant added: “I’d like them just in the front row, just for heckles, we like hecklers don’t we hecklers corner?”

The show is due to air in 2027, as part of celebrations marking 25 years of I’m A Celebrity – which first hit our screens in August, 2002. Rather than competing individually, contestants will reportedly tackle challenges as pairs, working together to win food and survive eliminations before one winning duo is crowned.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Police were called to the Misfits Boxing event at Utilita Arena on Saturday (September 12) after viral videos showed disturbances involving a number of people. 

Officers attended and arrested four people on suspicion of assault – with Northumbria Police saying that no serious injuries have been reported. 

Several videos of fights at the venue have been posted and shared on X, with one video showing security staff trying to break up the altercations.

Thousands flocked to the event on Saturday night to watch the “UK’s hardest man” Big Stacks triumph over Jordan McCann. 

A force spokesperson said enquiries now remain ongoing into incidents at the venue, with officers trying to identify all those involved. 

The statement said: “We are aware of videos circulating online in relation to disturbances involving a number of people in attendance at a boxing event in Newcastle city centre yesterday (Saturday). 

“Officers attended and arrested four individuals on suspicion of assault, with no serious injuries reported to us. We want to make it clear that behaviour of this kind will not be tolerated. 

“The safety of the public is our utmost priority and enquiries are ongoing to identify all of those involved.

“Anyone with information should contact us online via direct message on social media or submit a report form on our website.”

By MARTIN BECKFORD, POLICY EDITOR

Published: 22:13 BST, 13 September 2026 | Updated: 22:47 BST, 13 September 2026

A Charlie Kirk statue erected outside the Turning Point USA headquarters in Arizona has been vandalized. 

The statue, which was unveiled on Thursday – the first anniversary of Kirk’s death – was found covered in red spray paint on Sunday morning in Phoenix. 

Officers with the Phoenix Police Department were called to the scene around 9am after someone reported the defaced memorial.

The bronze statue also had paint on it that appeared to be concentrated on the neck of the statue – an apparent mockery of where Kirk was shot. A frowny face was also drawn on its torso.

Another memorial outside the building, which features the late conservative next to a quote that reads: ‘May Charlie be received into the merciful arms of Jesus, our loving Savior,’ was also vandalized. 

A large red ‘X’ was drawn on his face, and red paint covered the word ‘Jesus’, as flowers and American flags lay near the memorial, photos show. 

It’s unclear if any suspects have been identified. 

The anti-Christian theme of the vandalism has upset Kirk’s supporters, with one online user reacting: ‘These animals will burn in hell for all eternity.’ 

Another larger memorial for the late conservative was also defaced

‘So, killing Charlie wasn’t enough. So noted,’ wrote another. 

Kirk was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, while speaking at a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University. 

Kirk, a close ally of President Donald Trump, co-founded and ran the conservative youth organization. 

The 31-year-old father and husband was shot in the neck by a single rifle shot while he hosted a debate event in front of roughly 3,000 people. 

He was rushed to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 

A manhunt was quickly launched for his alleged shooter, who was later identified as Tyler Robinson, 22. 

The Utah native surrendered to the local sheriff’s office after his parents allegedly convinced him to turn himself in following his confession to them. 

The 31-year-old father and husband was shot in the neck by a single rifle shot while he hosted a debate event in front of roughly 3,000 people

Robinson has been charged with ten criminal counts, including aggravated murder. That charge makes him eligible for the death penalty.

On September 1, a judge ruled that Robinson’s trial will move forward after prosecutors argued there was enough evidence against him. Meanwhile, his defense claimed the evidence was insufficient. 

His defense attorney then entered pleas of not guilty on all counts on his behalf. 

Robinson’s next court date is scheduled for October 23. 

Before the latest ruling, Utah County prosecutor Ryan McBride told the court: ‘It’s not difficult to understand the motive here. 

‘The defendant’s views were repugnant to the positions that Charlie Kirk famously took.’ 

The state has pointed to Robinson and Kirk’s opposing views on same-sex marriage and gender transitioning after it was revealed that the alleged shooter was in a romantic relationship with his former roommate, Lance Twiggs. 

A manhunt was quickly launched for his alleged shooter, who was later identified as Tyler Robinson, 22

Twiggs told investigators that he had been considering transitioning around the time Kirk was shot and killed, according to prosecutors. 

A note that Robinson wrote to Twiggs, who also went by Luna, was also presented by prosecutors. 

It read: ‘I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it. I wish we could have lived in a world where this was not necessary.’

The vandalism comes just days after chaos erupted in New York City after another Charlie Kirk statue was displayed. 

The life-sized statue was erected in Times Square on the one-year anniversary of Kirk’s death after sculptor Sergio Furnaru created the piece. 

Madness quickly ensued after its installation as both Kirk supporters and critics clashed on the streets.  

The Daily Mail contacted the Phoenix Police Department and Turning Point USA for comment. 

Donald Trump now has a new proposed timetable for his war with Iran, albeit without a clear purpose. Heading to the Republicans’ midterm convention in Texas this week, the US president told reporters the war would end “immediately after the election”. This is coming from a president seven months into a conflict that he predicted would last only weeks.

For all that time, the US has been jostling with Iran for military and strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz while seeking to further degrade the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ military capabilities. But without strategic direction, victory is impossible and Iran’s leverage over the Strait allows it to keep defining the negotiating battlefield.

Capability without a definition of victory produces exactly what we have watched for weeks: tit-for-tat strikes that have failed to move the needle on the Strait, let alone Iran’s nuclear program.

But behind the shortcomings of Trump’s kinetic application of hard power lies a more profound failure. As much as wars depend on a coherent military strategy, they also need a strategic narrative – a story that provides and sustains the legitimacy of war. Trump’s war has never had one.

With the mid-term elections looming in November, the political costs of that absence are only becoming more acute for Trump and the Republican party.

Consider the inventory of justifications offered since February. Before the war began, Trump promised anti-government protesters that “help is on its way”. But when the bombing started it was about destroying Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Then, within a day, it was also about forcing regime change.

Over several months, none of these ambitions were realised. In August, the vice-president, JD Vance, announced a new hierarchy of aims: keeping oil and gas cheap for Americans as “goal No. 1”, with Iran’s nuclear question demoted to second place.

Last week Vance went further by insisting that there isn’t a “war” at all, even though Iran had fired missiles at Kuwait in retaliation to US strikes on the cities of Bandar Abbas, Ahvaz, Aghajari, and Sirik. With each new justification and framing of this conflict, the original rationale for the war becomes harder to identify.

This matters because legitimacy is itself a source of state influence, especially in the context of wars of choice. It is what generates societal resolve at home, sustains the support of allies, and preserves the institutional prestige of the military asked to do the fighting. Strategic narratives are the vehicle through which such legitimacy is achieved; they can convert painful sacrifice into a cost that is worth sustaining.

And there is now a great deal of sacrifice that has yet to be given meaning. US Navy sailors enforcing the blockade have suffered from low morale – one crew member of the USS Abraham Lincoln went overboard in August due to mental health, after a record deployment without a port call.

American military fatalities resulting from Iranian retaliatory strikes on US bases in the region have been quietly reclassified by the Pentagon and moved out of the war’s official death toll. There are mounting accusations of civilian casualties in Iran, where Iranian officials claim that a US strike targeted a wedding ceremony near the Hormuz coast last week that killed four.

Unconvincing narrative

These losses strain America’s image among allies. However, the audience that most needs convincing is Trump’s own. His Maga approach was built on the premise that: “Great nations do not fight endless wars” and his support base is clearly concerned about lengthy foreign entanglements. Yet these are the voters now being asked to absorb the war’s costs without a compelling story that justifies them.

Come the mid-terms, they will inevitably vote with inflation and gas prices in mind when they reach the ballot box. Polling already shows an erosion in support for the war.

Wars of choice have failed this legitimacy test before – sometimes before a single shot was fired. In August 2013, the then UK prime minister David Cameron asked parliament to sanction airstrikes against Syria’s Assad regime after chemical attacks and lost.

The government’s case rested on a story of salvation, national standing and the moral duty to act. But that narrative could not compete with a rival story of loss, in which intervention meant repeating the errors of Iraq: mission creep, the futile sacrifice of soldiers’ lives, and further damage to a reputation already bruised by two inconclusive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is an uncomfortable lesson for Washington here. The British case suggests that once a public comes to view a war of choice through the frame of loss – futile sacrifice, eroded prestige, no discernible end – no quantity of firepower can restore its legitimacy. The problem Trump has is that he initiated a shooting war with Iran first, leaving the narrative vacuum to be filled afterwards. Now it is filled with images of a bombed wedding, exhausted sailors and vessels sitting stranded in the Strait of Hormuz.

Stories which successfully sustain public consent for military force often share two main ingredients: an immediate threat to the homeland, and an opportunity for the initiator to assume the role of saviour. Twenty-five years ago, the September 11 attacks supplied both in their most visceral form. This is why the invasion of Afghanistan garnered public and allied support.

Trump currently has neither of these to fall back on. There is no communicated threat to Americans at home and no one is being rescued. There is only a rotating stock of rationales, none of which has held long enough to become convincing.

Until his administration can communicate a narrative that speaks to an existential Iranian threat at home and casts America as the saviour of something worth saving, Trump’s story will be written for him.

He risks being remembered as just another gung-ho president who rushed into a Middle Eastern war he did not understand – the very legacy he promised voters he would never repeat.

Countryfile viewers got a look at an unusual activity

The latest edition of long-running BBC series Countryfile featured a guest who shared a warning over an unusual activity.

This Sunday’s episode (September 13) saw the show take a look at ‘an old estate in a modern world’. Its description from the TV listings explained that Joe Crowley, Datshiane Navanayagam and Adam Henson all head to Westacre in Norfolk to discover how a historic rural estate is adapting to survive in the modern world.

At a financially critical time of year, Datshiane looked at its valuable yet vulnerable crop of blueberries. They also met the owner to find out how traditional estates are diversifying and evolving to secure their future.

Joe joined the conservation team working to restore an important area of wet woodland, boosting biodiversity and creating habitats for wildlife. Their final spot was a tenant brewery crafting local ale before sampling some themselves in the village pub.

Meanwhile, Adam met the farm manager, who is looking at ways to help run the land in a more cost-effective way through collaboration between livestock and arable farming. However, one special guest took part in something very different.

The show also introduced Nicola Crockford who enjoys a unique pastime on the estate – river snorkelling. She described it as thrilling and said she gives the owners a different perspective of their land.

Footage showed Nicola in action as she drifted down the river with her camera. She said one of the things that owners are usually interested in finding out about, is how much trout are in their waters.

She said: “I love a mission. I love that the thing that gives me personal pleasure can also be useful and give other people pleasure. I feel so lucky, I feel so blessed to be given this treat in life.”

While in the river, she tries to film as much fish, food and everything she can find to make a record of what is below the surface. Later, as she’s in the water she told the camera: “Worries? What worries? There’s no worries, there’s no aches, no pains, this is heaven.”

Nicola recommended the activity to viewers but it came with a warning. She urged: “Obviously, don’t just get in the river without checking out on the website for health and safety. Getting landowners’ permission as necessary and that way you can have a wonderful snorkel.”

Over the years of snorkelling, Nicola claimed she has found other ‘extraordinary’ artefacts. These include skulls, a World War Two bomb and a horde of jewels. She said you never know what you could find.

According to the British Sub-Aqua Club website, river snorkelling is one of the “UK’s hidden gems”. They state that it allows divers to explore a a completely different environment from the coast on a rewarding, relaxed adventure.

Countryfile continues next Sundays at 7pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

Every year, between 80,000 and 140,000 people die from snakebites worldwide. Hundreds of thousands more are left with amputated limbs or permanent disabilities.

India accounts for roughly half of these deaths, with around 58,000 people dying from snakebites each year. Many of the victims are farmers, labourers and children in rural communities, bitten while working in the fields or walking home after dark.

Yet the basic way we treat snakebite has changed little in more than a century. Traditional antivenom is made using horses: they are injected with small doses of snake venom, prompting their immune systems to produce antibodies. Blood is then collected from the horse and processed to make the antivenom.

This type of antivenom has saved countless lives, but it has drawbacks. The antivenom can vary from batch to batch, cause severe allergic reactions and is expensive to produce.

It can also offer limited protection. For example, in India, antivenom is mainly made using venoms from four snake species known as the “big four”: the Indian spectacled cobra, common krait, Russell’s viper, and saw-scaled viper. But these antivenoms do not always work well against venoms from other snake species, or populations of the same snake species, found across the country.

We wanted to know whether modern biotechnology could offer a better approach. Our new study in mice, suggests it might.

Small antibodies, big ambitions

Our approach uses nanobodies, tiny versions of antibodies. Antibodies are proteins made by the immune system that recognise and help neutralise harmful substances, including toxins. Nanobodies do a similar job but are much smaller.

Their size could make them useful for treating snakebites because they can move through tissue quickly and reach venom before it causes permanent damage. They can be also be produced in microbes, rather than using horses.

We have already developed nanobodies that can neutralise venoms from African cobras and mambas. Because different cobra species produce many of the same types of toxins, we wanted to see whether these nanobodies could also work against Indian cobra venoms.

In our lab, we mixed five nanobodies and tested them against venoms from several cobra and king cobra species from India. We found that all five were able to target the toxins across the different venoms. This was encouraging because the nanobodies had originally been developed using African snake venoms.

From lab to living animal

We then tested the cocktail in mice. When the venoms and treatment were given together, all of the treated mice survived. While untreated mice died within 30 minutes because of neurotoxicity, typical of cobra bites.

We also tested what would happen if the treatment was given after a simulated bite. The mice received venom first, followed by the nanobody treatment through a vein. This was to simulate someone reaching a clinic after being bitten by a snake.

We found that the treatment still saved the mice when given 20 minutes after the venom. The treatment also prevented the severe effects of the venom, including paralysis and breathing failure.

We checked that the nanobodies did not bind to human proteins, which is important as doing so could cause unwanted side effects. We also found that the nanobodies remained intact at high temperatures, which is important in places where keeping medicines cold can be difficult.

A long road still ahead

These results are promising, but this was a study in mice, so the findings do not necessarily translate directly to people. What works in an animal model may not work in humans in exactly the same way. So the results are best seen as an indication that this approach could be worth developing further.

The cocktail is also not a universal antivenom. Our tests showed that it doesn’t work against Indian kraits, meaning that additional nanobodies would be needed to target these and India’s dangerous vipers. More research is also needed to understand the right dose, how long the treatment lasts and how well it works when treatment is further delayed in larger animal and humans.

The next step would be to test the antivenom in people. First, we would need to make sure it’s safe, decide the right dose and produce it to pharmaceutical standards. The treatment would then be tested in people who come to hospital after being bitten by a snake.

So even though there’s some way to go before this way of making antivenoms could actually be used in humans, these results build on our previous work and suggest that nanobody-based antivenoms could eventually provide a more flexible and effective approach to treating snakebite.

This means that instead of developing a completely new treatment for every snake species, a shared set of nanobodies could potentially be combined and adapted for different geographical regions.

For the people and communities living with the greatest risk of snakebite, this could make an enormous difference. And potentially save tens of thousands of lives every year.

This series was commissioned as part of a partnership between Videnskab.dk and The Conversation, where articles are published in English and Danish.

Pro Ref, formerly PGMOL, have recognised that Erling Haaland’s winner in the Manchester derby was an error of judgment

Pro Ref have taken accountability for an ‘error of judgement’ during the Manchester derby and a review will take place after Erling Haaland’s winner was allowed to stand.Haaland scored the decisive goal for Manchester City against Manchester United when Josko Gvardiol’s cross deflected towards the back post, where the striker applied the finish.

Lisandro Martinez was positioned between Enzo Fernandez and Haaland, but the City midfielder launched himself toward the ball in an effort to convert a diving header. However, officials ruled that the former Chelsea man had not interfered with play.

The linesman initially raised his flag to deny 10‑man City, but VAR reviewed the incident and instructed Michael Oliver to award the goal. Further clarification has now been provided by Pro Ref, formerly PGMOL, who say VAR failed to recognise the likely impact of Fernandez’s position and should have recommended an on‑field review.

A Pro Ref spokesperson said: “Following the incident in the 60th minute of Sunday’s Premier League fixture between Manchester United and Manchester City at Old Trafford, we can provide clarification regarding Erling Haaland’s awarded goal.

“The on-field decision was offside against Erling Haaland – that was checked by VAR and he was found to be in an onside position. In the same attack, it was established that Enzo Fernandez did not play the ball and therefore that makes any offside offence subjective, however, on this occasion, the VAR did not recognise the likely impact of his position and should have recommended an on-field review.

“Contact has been made with Manchester United this evening to acknowledge what we deem is an error of judgement. A review of the incident will take place.”

The decision left Sky Sports co‑commentator Gary Neville baffled. “I’m going to need the offside law explaining to me, it’s lost me,” he said on air.

Meanwhile, Reds head coach Michael Carrick admitted he was deeply worried about the outcome, adding: “Confused, not even confused, we’ve put things in place to help referees’ decisions, screens, referees in an office somewhere. It’s more worrying about if that’s the interpretation about football.

FOLLOW OUR MAN UNITED FB PAGE! Latest news and analysis via the MEN’s Manchester United Facebook page

“If we’ve got people in place that are meant to understand the game of football or not interfering with play or impacting an attack, throwing your body at it with a defender next to him, it’s really worrying for me, if that’s how it’s interpreted. It’s a staggering decision. I can’t understand it once I seen it then the explanation almost makes it worse. Well, the explanation that he’s not interfering with play. Incredible.”

A furious Martinez made his feelings known after the game, saying he shifted towards Fernandez and away from Haaland because he was trying to score.

“I think he was offside,” he said. “And what I can’t understand is the rules, you know? He was there!

“I went to him because he was there in front of me. That’s why Haaland was free at the back [post]. I want to be calm now, I want to control myself. It is so hard. It is so hard because you lose a derby, you lose three points at home.

“Every season they [officials] come to our club and explain an hour, an hour-and-a-half the rules and they look so confident with that. Then after, five or six people [officials] doing this kind of mistake in the Premier League is unacceptable. It’s the best league in the world and you have the best teams and players in the world. We have to go home with this injustice.”

Haaland’s strike proved to be the winner, with City taking all three points despite being reduced to ten men. Phil Foden was sent off in the first half for a challenge on Bruno Fernandes.