The problem isn't the umpires, it's the rules. Rules in any sport should be - so far as possible - clear and objective, so that the umpire knows what to look for and to penalise it accordingly. The deliberate rule is the exact opposite of what a rule should be: it rests purely on the umpire's ability to make a subjective interpretation about what the "intent" of the player is. With the Dom Tyson one, the only person in the world who could possibly know what Dom Tyson's intent was in that case is Dom Tyson. The mealy-mouthed equivocations that Hayden Kennedy gives us every week are nothing more than warmed-over rationalisations for rules that, regardless of the competency of the umpires, are literally impossible to adjudicate objectively. They're umpires, not ******* psychologists.
Holding the ball is another one. When a tackle is laid, and the umpire has to think about whether or not to pay holding the ball, think about the morass of horse shit the umpire is expected by the rules committee to wade through before making a decision. First he has to decide if the tackle was high, a decision which should be simple enough - namely, did the tackler's arm touch the guy's head or not? But no, it can't be that simple. If head-high contact was made because the tackle "slipped up" during the action of applying a tackle then apparently that's okay. The umpire also needs to decide if the guy being tackled "ducked", which involves tracking his knee movements at all times. Then, if the tackle is a legal one, the umpire needs to shift his hermeneutical finesse to the life circumstances of the guy with the ball. Firstly, did he have "prior opportunity"? That's a slippery concept that, so far as I'm aware, lacks any clear definition. Is it measured in steps, or seconds, or the number of neural signals that can take place between brain and hand? In any case, once he's made up his mind on this count, the umpire then has to jump back into his psychologist's armchair to decide if the player being tackled is making a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball or not. How are we to know that? Are we to read it on his face? If the ball does come free, the umpire then needs to adopt a evaluative stance vis a vis the player's execution of the basic skills of the game and decide if he "disposed of it correctly". This is objective enough when it comes to kicking, but deciding on the efficacy of a putative handball when there are ten pairs of hands around it is surely little better than guesswork. And, naturally, all of the preceding may or may not be moot if the player being tackled had "dragged the ball in" previously. So that's what, seven or eight factors the umpire needs to process in the space of a split second every time he adjudicates on the possibility of a "holding the ball" decision? Is it any wonder this throws up questionable decisions every week that drives us mad?
Here in the Czech Republic I occasionally play Aussie Rules with a team largely made up of Czech players. Many of them have been playing for many years, and still aren't able to grasp the basics of the rules. Every time we play in a tournament with teams from Germany or Austria, there are dozens of points in every game where a team concedes a free kick because the players genuinely aren't sure what they can and can't do from moment to moment, and because nobody (including the umpire) is capable of coherently explaining it to them. And if playing the game involves first mastering the nonsensical psychobabble I mentioned above, then what chance does the average Central European have? It's a shame, because they really love the game, but then when I try to explain the holding the ball rule using all the requisite jargon like "prior opportunity", their eyes glaze over and I ask myself, why does it have to be this way? I mean even something simple like, "the other team has taken a mark - where can I stand"? I'm not even sure if I know what the rules are here myself. Don't step past the point where the mark was taken seems like a good place to start, but then it's difficult explaining why sometimes the umpires give them a chance to step back and sometimes don't. You're not allowed to be within 10 metres of the guy with the mark, and you're certainly not allowed to touch him, but that rule seems to be flexible if you're chasing your opponent round. Even the simplest things are needlessly over-officiated. There is absolutely no reason for this, and all it's going to do is prevent the expansion of the game outside of the AFL's little bubble. AFL must be the only sport in the world which requires a 10 minute program every week to explain the rules of the game to people who have been watching it for decades.
My solution? Thanks for asking. First, fire the rules committee into the sun. Overseeing the rules of a sport should not be a paid, full-time position. Then, give the responsibility for writing the rules to a body independent from the AFL business unit. This would serve to protect the integrity of the rules, and will prevent the AFL from fiddling with the rules, adding a new layer of Byzantine opacity, every time they feel the need to artificially engineer a more appealing spectacle. Finally, simplify the rules to make them as clear and objective as possible. Make it so that they can be explained to a German guy in five minutes. Exile anyone who talks of "interpretations".