Except that a goal umpire or timekeeper has the capacity to directly influence the outcome of a game
Agree in principle smokey
But in the case of the goal umpire who was stood down - he bet on a game that he wasn't standing in so how could he influence the game he bet $5-$10 on? He couldn't but the ALF came down hard on him anyway
Just seems like a lack of consistency to me
I'm sure we agree with most of this WP. Maybe they (the AFL) looked at it that officials in 'match-controlling' positions were more susceptible to the temptation of an unsavory action than peripheral officials like assistant coaches or club directors and needed to make an initial statement accordingly.
