Sorry, but I have to agree with Steve on this. Field design can have a great impact on the officiating. Certain designs, such as the JT temple (which I'm intimately familiar with) are more difficult to ref than others. These designs often have blind angles openings that expose the player, or can hide portions of the player from the referees view. While these designs can be effectively reffed, it generally requires more sets of eyes to cover all the angles a player can use or be exposed to.
Simply saying the refs need to move more is an oversimplification of the issue. Regardless of how much a ref moves, he can only be in one place at a time and cannot cover the every angle of some bunker designs.
With a limited number of refs on the field, the use of a bunker that requires two or more sets of eyes means the refs have to have much tighter communication, which can be difficult during a game (markers being shot, each ref focusing on his sector, etc.). This is feasible, but it opens up the possiblity that either a player will have a period when he's not fully covered, or that there will be an area of the field not watched by a ref (as two refs have to cover the problem bunker).
Some consideration for reffing, spectating and photography (still and video) should be given when designing a field. Otherwise you may end up with fields that are "fun" for the players but not for anyone else (and no, I'm not implying the refs are there to have fun). Often a simple change to a key bunker can drastically improve the overall satisfaction of the field. Just keep things like reffing in mind when you're laying out the fields.
