I've thought about this a little more and it could possibly work but may not be better than the current player-judging system.
Let's take Campaign as an example:
According to my info there were 19 pro, 35 am and 80 nov teams, for a total of 134 teams. And 7 fields x 8 judges would mean a need of 56 judges per day. Each field should have its own field marshall so the need for team-refs would be 49. There would only be a need to draw one ref from each of the pro and am teams, 49 for the fields and the remaining 5 for chronographing, putting on armbands and working as runners.
The problems are:
how to enforce this on the teams - as someone asked already
how do we ensure that a quality ref is "donated" to the cause
what about the teams that try but can't get that seventh body
The quality issue could be partially addressed by an evening-before reffing seminar, but that doesn't prove the quality of the judges.
Naw, I think it's better with the system we have now: a combination of judging for points and paid, quality refs. The important thing, no matter what, is to push training, tough head-field-judges, pre-tourney briefings, consistency in enforcement, constant supervision by the ultimate and tougher rules on cheating, IMO.
Self-judging might work on smaller scale tournaments, however.
Another idea, however, is to be open to the possibilty of a mix of all three. Full teams judging an entire event for points, pro refs who are paid and whatever teams that want arranging with the promotor to contribute a warm body in exchange for a reduced entry fee. Or something like that.