How verdicts of officials such as Judges, Referees etc and their potential influence on outcomes to support their own agenda?

Imagine a football team scoring 3 goals in a match, only to have the referee mistakenly disallow all 3 goals, resulting in a draw. This begs the question: was it truly a draw, or does this indicate corruption on the part of the referee? It's highly improbable for any referee to make such a series of errors in a single game.

Similarly, picture an MMA fight where one fighter completely dominates their opponent for three rounds, landing hundreds of strikes without receiving a single response. However, the referee declares the bout a draw. In this scenario, was it genuinely a draw, or does this raise suspicions of referee bias?

Furthermore, if a judge in a murder trial disregards confessions and vital video evidence, seemingly ignoring the clear guilt of the accused, does it imply that the accused is innocent, or does it point to potential corruption within the judicial system?

Consider another case where a judge dismisses 40 pieces of evidence, including confessions, witnesses, and inconsistencies in a woman's story, all of which cast doubt on her claim of rape. Does this mean she did not lie about rape, or could it suggest a bias on the part of the judge?

In light of these examples, we return to the central question: does the public perceive the correct outcome, or could referees and judges be manipulating perceptions to serve their own agendas?"