The first of OP's examples...
1: The referee made us lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored
...will occasionally be used by some speakers seeking to avoid the relatively "starchy" phrasing of, say,...
2: The referee caused us to lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored
But as commented, the vast majority of native speakers wouldn't present the assertion with the referee as the subject. They'd say something like...
3: We lost the match because the referee disallowed two of the goals we scored
The reason most people don't like #1 above is because that construction is often used in contexts implying that the referee deliberately acted in order to cause speaker's team to lose. And the main reason some speakers use it is precisely because they think the referee was biased, and actively favoured their opponents.
OP's second version is very unlikely, because it always implies the referee acted in line with a prearranged plan, and usually implies "cooperation" as per the third version.
The third version would never occur, because it implies the referee "persuaded" the speaker's team to go along with his plan, which makes no sense.