I've known two different AFL umpires. One a goal umpire and the other a reasonably respected field umpire. I wasn't a drinking buddy or anything, so not going to claim I was close, but trusted enough. One was extended family and the other married our neighbour.
Both left the AFL ("retired") after getting frustrated at the internal politics of the umpiring department. It was a few Umpiring coaches ago, but they mentioned things like finals umpire allocations, would always go to the "in crowd", particularly closer to the GF.
The in-crowd were the type who'd jump on board behind the rule changes without questioning the decisions. The politics seemed like run of the mill office type politics to me in hindsight. Being in the "in group" would get you better games (umpires hate umpiring cellar dwellers just like crowds avoid watching them), less travel, etc. Helped if you liked a drink with the boys, or had others vouch for you when you joined the ranks.
The AFL also loved to try push diversity through the ranks as it was good PR.
The goal umpire joked that he might get a better run if he was an indigenous lesbian or if he could claim he was a refugee (unlikely - he had German heritage).
I wonder if those types of cultural issues in the umpiring ranks have been addressed? Been a pretty tumultuous year for the fraternity and some experience seems to be dropping off or out of favour. Unhappy workers often translate to poor performance....
I'm probably building a really thin straw man here, but I reckon there's a lot not right behind the scenes.