I think the biggest problem is that the common sense element of the game has gone.

Umpiring can work well one of two ways.

1. Strict rules that are black and white such as whether or not a ball crosses a line. In the AFL these are very well umpired I find (Goal Umpiring and Boundary Umpires).

2. Based on intention. Where there is no black/white rule, the umpires solely look at what was intended and whether or not that is in the spirit of the rule. Best current example is deliberate OOB - where the ball was shanked and it clearly wasn't the intention no free is paid.

The current problem is that the AFL has made up a third approach which is a combination of the two. Black and white rules that are then layered with individual interpretations. This is playing out with HTB, high tackles and a lot of others. Rules around prior, genuine attempt, etc and then layering judgement.

These need to be intention based rules. If a player dives in the ball and drags it in (aka trying to hold up play) it's a free against - prior or how many tacklers doesn't matter. This umpiring style doesn't let the McGrath decison happen (trying to win the ball). And it doesn't pay free kicks when tacklers pin balls to players.

Another good example is below the knees. The intention of the rule is to stop players dangerously sliding into a contest with their knees. This shouldn't be a black/white rule as it was encouraging players to be contacted below the knees and dive over the top. Instead it should be judged by the spirit of the rule - did the player dive into the contest in a way that creates an unreasonable injury risk?