Leeds United and Rotherham United, who are struggling in the Championship, were tied 1-1 on Friday night.

Two Sky Sports analysts, Michael Dawson and Sue Smith, concurred that Leeds United should have been awarded a penalty in their Friday night match against Rotherham United. In South Yorkshire, the Whites dominated the first half and took an early lead, thanks to a goal from Crysencio Summerville.
Hakeem Odoffin of the Millers scored an equalising goal for the home team late in the first half. Despite having chances to increase their lead, Farke’s team was unable to seize them. Jaidon Anthony thought he had scored a late winner, but Patrick Bamford was offside during the entire build-up, so the goal was disallowed. However, referee Oliver Langford’s decision to reject Lee Peltier’s appeals after he caught Daniel James in the shin with his studs visible inside the penalty area was the true cause of the Whites’ annoyance. Dawson feels that the decision would have been overturned and Peltier would have been fired had VAR been accessible during the Championship.

Dawson stated, “Petler’s decision to not give Dan James a penalty here was fortunate for the Rotherham team.” Since there is no VAR in the Championship, that was not the appropriate result. Peltier would have been given a penalty kick and a red card if they had, and Leeds was regretful for that choice.”

Daniel Farke, the manager of Leeds, voiced his displeasure with the outcome of the match and maintained his firm view that his team should have been awarded a penalty as they attempted to win.Even though I was far away, I was of the opinion that it was absolutely a penalty, he stated. All day long, you get this situation—it’s the championship, there isn’t VAR, and the game is presumably at home. Not really many people are calling for the away game. At the championship level, you have to accept it. Undoubtedly, there is a punishment. It was plain to see, and I had the impression that the referee was close enough to witness it.