The game design always requires subjective officiating. The officiating itself is not the flaw I am speaking about (that is its own subject), it's the design of the game, the 245 pages of rules that rely on human subjectivity to interpret, observe, and enforce those 245 pages in real time.

With a limited number of officials, a limited number of camera views, and differing philosophies on what exactly the rules mean, which change year to year.

That's the point. There is no escaping it and it often leaves players, coaches, and fans dissatisfied and blaming the officiating. (see the last 14 hours or so)

Chess does not require subjective rules officiating. Two players sit down and can play with or without observers and both understand and comply 100% with the actions of the other, the outcomes, and the result, because the game design is so sound.

The chess comparison is simply to contrast with how absurdly complex football is and the subjective nature of enforcing those complex rules during a game.

I still watch football, I'm just trying to come to peace with how stupid it is. 😉