seldom do we see both sets of players (opponents on the filed) being so fed up and dissapointed by the same decision of the ref, even though it may be to one team's advantage.

That is the "real" problems behind alot of controversial refereeing decisions - the referee do not understand the game and apply laws too rigidly. How can there be disrepute to the game by tackling down an intruder (especially when 3-4 stewards cant even manage to touch him - so if he evades for 10 minutes, whizzing past players, they cant do anything and have to quietly "enjoy the view" for 10 minutes????) How can that be an act of indiscipline????

so the referee's ultimate objective is not to uphold sporting fairness and be an unbiased arbiter - he is to give utmost priority to -> keeping his job?

the only reason we still have referees around in soccer (as is being stressed repeatedly by our dear I-am-always-right-Mr-Fifa-Blatter) is that there is the "human element" involved and the spontanety humans referees make that make the game more enjoyable to watch and (in an ideal world) more "humanised" and appeal to the spectators who are all highly charged with adrenallin anyway watching games. In other words, it makes the game exciting and as a direct side-product, controversial. Referees are given DISCRETIONS based on his experience and control of the game - if he feels tackles are strong but fair and game is in good atmosphere he may be more lenient so as to allow flow, vice versa.

So why did the referee not excercise discretion in these scenarios above?