Leeds United’s hard-fought draw with Brentford has taken another controversial turn after former PGMOL chief Keith Hackett delivered a verdict that could leave supporters questioning how Daniel Farke’s side escaped from a potentially decisive penalty incident at Elland Road.

The Whites were forced to settle for a 1-1 draw on Sunday after producing a much-improved second-half display to recover from a difficult opening period.

For long spells before the break, Brentford appeared to be the more dangerous side and eventually took a deserved lead when Kevin Schade’s effort looped over Leeds goalkeeper James Trafford.

Farke’s team struggled to impose themselves during the first half, but the Leeds manager made changes after the interval in an attempt to breathe new life into his side.

Those substitutions eventually paid dividends.

Lukas Nmecha made an instant impact after being introduced, helping create the opportunity that allowed Dominic Calvert-Lewin to level the score and rescue a point for the hosts.

But while Leeds will ultimately look back on the result as a valuable recovery, one incident could have dramatically changed the outcome.

Former PGMOL chief questions Leeds penalty escape

Shortly after the hour mark, Brentford broke forward at pace and Schade found himself inside the Leeds penalty area.

Jayden Bogle challenged the Brentford attacker, who went down under the challenge and immediately appealed for a penalty.

Referee Tony Harrington was unmoved.

The official waved away the Brentford claims, and VAR subsequently backed the decision rather than recommending an on-field review.

That appeared to bring the controversy to an end.

However, Hackett has now offered a completely different interpretation of what happened.

The former PGMOL chief believes Brentford should have been awarded a penalty and argued that Bogle’s challenge amounted to a deliberate trip.

Speaking to MOT Leeds News, Hackett was particularly critical of the decision not to award a spot-kick.

“This is a foul. It’s a deliberate trip on an opponent and I am surprised that a penalty kick was not awarded by the referee,” Hackett said.

“I do not think you need to do a forensic check on this to see it’s a foul.”

His assessment immediately adds another layer of controversy to a match in which Leeds were already fortunate to escape with a point.

Had Brentford been awarded the penalty and converted from 12 yards, the visitors would have moved two goals ahead and put Farke’s side in an extremely difficult position.

Instead, the decision went Leeds’ way, allowing the hosts to remain within touching distance before Calvert-Lewin eventually restored parity.

For Brentford, the incident will undoubtedly feel like a major missed opportunity.

Leeds showed a different side after the break

Despite the controversy, there were positives for Farke to take from the second half.

The Leeds boss recognised that his side needed something different after a disappointing first 45 minutes and adjusted his tactical approach.

The Whites eventually operated in a 4-2-3-1 system, and the change appeared to have a noticeable impact on the contest.

Leeds finished the second half with a 1-0 advantage, turning what had looked like a potentially damaging home defeat into a draw.

That tactical switch could prove to be one of the most interesting developments to emerge from the game.

Farke has previously moved away from the 4-2-3-1 setup, but the performance after the formation change may encourage him to reconsider whether it can give Leeds greater balance and attacking threat.

The impact of his substitutions was equally encouraging.

Nmecha’s introduction helped change the tempo of the game, while Calvert-Lewin once again demonstrated his importance by finding the decisive equaliser.

Still, the overall performance leaves plenty for Farke to analyse.

Leeds were second best for significant periods of the first half, and the penalty controversy serves as a reminder of how easily the game could have slipped away from them.

A lucky escape — but an important point

Ultimately, Leeds will probably accept the point.

They showed character to recover from a poor opening half, responded to Brentford’s pressure and found a way back into the game.

But Hackett’s verdict means the result will inevitably be viewed through another lens.

The former referee’s claim that Brentford should have received a penalty suggests Leeds may have benefited from a major refereeing decision at a crucial moment.

That could have completely altered the match.

Instead, the Whites survived, found their equaliser and walked away with something to show for their efforts.

For Farke, the challenge now is making sure his team learns from the warning.

Leeds cannot expect to repeatedly survive difficult spells, controversial decisions and defensive scares and still collect points consistently in the Premier League.

The 1-1 draw may therefore prove useful in more ways than one.

It exposed weaknesses that need fixing, highlighted the potential impact of Farke’s tactical adjustments and showed that his substitutes can make a difference.

But above all, it provided another reminder that margins at this level are incredibly small.

On this occasion, Leeds survived them.

Next time, they may not be so fortunate.