I actually think that the umpires should be as anonymous as possible. Giving them rankings and dissecting their performance publicly would mostly serve to reinforce existing views about them among the fans, and given all we know about cognitive biases, I don't think that's a great thing.
No-one notices when a correct decision is made. Certainly there is no positive emotional response towards an umpire. Also, we acknowledge that umpiring AFL is hard given the speed of the game, the distance covered by umpires, the number of rule changes, and how subjective our rules are. Yet, we will remember almost all of the shockers made by umpires, and if the public know all their names and umpiring history, it's just going to make it worse.
Basically, we perceive umpires the way we perceive Zac Dawson. We know he's useless, we know he is going to cost us goals, and we seek out examples that prove our view of him. We don't notice the things he does right: the positioning, the sensible fist, the fact that the second tallest defender gets an easier ride because Zac takes the best marking target. But we notice the stuff-ups.
Put an anonymous guy in his place, or A Pearce, and people won't spot the bad as readily. They might even look for the good. Not a single poster here has mentioned that at a crucial point in the game, A Pearce had a 3 on 0 in the goal square, and instead of picking it up for an easy goal, he soccered it though for a point like a chump. If Zac D did that, Dockerland would have had to shut down for 24 hours.
The AFL should keep the umps out of the spotlight. Because sadly, like Zac Dawson, they're the best we've got.
