I had my tongue in cheek when I made the above comment. I happen to agree with
@Padfoot even though sometimes I think he uses a sledgehammer to crack a walnut!
I personally think when an incident happens there are 3 types of referee:
The first type is maybe quite new, or inexperienced or not very confident - this can lead them to either bottle decisions because they are scared of the consequences or not be in a position to see them in the first place and only see the "what happens after" These are the referees that need help mentoring and support on how to handle these types of situation, which will also hopefully come as they get more experience.
The second type is the ref that doesn't want any hassle, they have no ambition to progress any higher and are appointed to games by virtue of of them being available. Some of them haven't looked at the LOTG for many years and are happy to do "easy" games, even if that means avoiding a potentially game changing decision. These in my view are the true LWR, but in many cases without them the number of games covered plummets - one appt sec in my area told me that if he didn't have his 50+ age group refs to rely on, he'd struggle to cover 25% of his games.
The third are the ones that want to do the right thing, won't shy away from making the tough or unpopular calls, but sometimes make mistakes - whether that be in application of law or on how they interpret a given situation. I'd put myself in this category. Have I had players that I should have sent off but didn't? Yes I have. But i'm also clear, whilst i'm an experienced referee and still looking to go higher, i'm still learning as I go, I make mistakes from time to time, but i'm willing to take on constructive feedback from other referees who watch me along with observers to help me make my game better and avoid making the same mistakes over and over.