Just nowTue 14 Apr 2026 at 7:13amThe Tribunal is breaking away to deliberate

Apparently they have until 5.45 to reach and deliver a verdict, and if I heard correctly, then may not offer the full reasons for their decision until tomorrow? We’ll have to wait and see on that one.

Either way, we’ll have a decision soon.

1m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 7:12am

The AFL is offering back one more response

The AFL says the phrase “clearly satisfied” does not appear in the rules. Apparently regulation 19.4 says the Tribunal can make the final decision, but does not reference to any language beyond that.

Port Adelaide says it took “clearly satisfied” from regulation 6.1 and accepts the AFL’s point regarding regulation 19.4.

So there you go.

The AFL also points to the strength of Foot’s testimony and the implication that a finding in Butters’ favour would have as to the umpire’s integrity.

9m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 7:04am

The Tribunal disagrees with one Port Adelaide claim

The Tribunal has come back with a response to some of Port Adelaide’s claims.

“It is not right that the Tribunal would have to find that Wines was giving untruthful evidence in order for the charge to be upheld … as it could be that Wines did not hear the comment.”

And the Port Adelaide response:

“That is true in the case of Wines, but is not true in the case of Butters who is adamant he did not say those words. If there was to be a finding in favour of the AFL, the finding would have to be that Butters has lied.”

And now one of the Tribunal members has lost connection so the whole thing is on hold for the time being.

13m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 7:00am

Port Adelaide brings up the ‘glaring hole in the evidence’

The club is speaking about the lack of umpire mic recording of the moment.

“Obviously if we had that we may not be here, because there would be some objective independent evidence. It is therefore a question of who has the correct recollection.

(The AFL) is inviting the Tribunal to find that both Butters and Wines have been untruthful. If the Tribunal was to accept our finding, it’s that umpire Foot did not hear correctly what was said.

“The other thing is, Butters was not to know there would be no audio recording. If fact we all assumed the audio would be able to be found. It would be brave an unusual for him to be telling either Rutten or a journalist what he said if he was thinking the audio would come out and he would be proven incorrect.”

Port Adelaide says the AFL should find Butters said at least one, but maybe both of the “surely that’s not a free kick”/”how is that a free kick?” double-header, but certainly not “how much are they paying you?”.

18m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:55am

Port Adelaide is laying out its case

Port Adelaide says that the evidence presented does not allow the Tribunal to be “clearly satisfied” the remarks were made as alleged.

Port is now trying to get to the bottom of this timeline confusion. Port says the Tribunal should be “cautious in attributing to Mr Wines that statements were made before and after the whistle” due to the confusion.

“We reject the decision that the immediate paying of a 50m penalty allows the Tribunal to draw any conclusion that the alleged statements were made. It just suggests Foot thought something offensive was said.

“Whether it was the case that Butters made one comment or two – and Wines said in his evidence that Butters made “one or two sentences” – but putting together the evidence from both players, what was said to the journalist after the game, and what was said to Ben Rutten the words said were ‘surely that’s not a free kick’ and/or ‘how is that a free kick?’.

“Perhaps Butters said both of these things. But neither is anywhere close to the alleged words in the charge.”

24m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:49am

The Tribunal tries again to get a timeline on the AFL case

Upon prompting, the AFL is saying that Butters believes he said only one thing and that it was said in between the “move-along whistle” and the “50m penalty” whistle.

The AFL says Wines, on the other hand, believes multiple things were said by both parties both before and after the “move-along whistle”.

Also I have gone ahead and titled these whistles, because the lawyers just keep saying whistle and everyone in this hearing is lost as a result.

The AFL says it is implausible that Butters couldn’t make out what Wines said, and that the umpire’s microphone couldn’t make out what Butters said, but that Wines could hear clearly what Butters said.

28m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:45am

AFL says evidence of umpire Foot should be preferred

The AFL says Foot’s evidence is “clear and truthful” while Port Adelaide’s is “inconsistent’ and “peculiar”.

“The awarding of the 50m penalty was an immediate reaction to it. Mr Butters, on the other hand, has given different versions of the words he has used and may very well have said the words that he is now charged with.”

31m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:42am

The AFL is laying out its case

The AFL concludes by saying that the comment “how much are they paying you?” qualifies as abusive language and should bring about the punishment of a $1,500 fine for Butters. It says its case comes down to the Tribunal accepting the word of Foot, “and we say that it ought”.

The AFL says Foot was certain as to the words that were used, and that his evidence has been consistent all along. It claims that Butters’ evidence has changed from the post-match interview today.

There is still significance confusion about the timing and number of remarks made, and the Tribunal is trying to make sense of the AFL’s case in that regard. The AFL says “it is peculiar” that a complaint made about the free kick wasn’t raised by Butters until the time that Owens was being hurried along to take his kick.

Butters is shaking his head and the Port Adelaide lawyer is smiling as this whistle confusion continues. I’m not sure anyone quite knows what the other is talking about at the moment.

39m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:34am

Rutten is asked about Butters’ wording

The AFL is asking Rutten about Butters’ Channel Seven interview again, in which the wording of his version is slightly different (“how is that a free kick?” vs “surely that’s not a free kick).

Rutten says he hasn’t spoken to Butters about the interview, but that the words he said he used were “surely that’s not a free kick”.

Nice and quick for Ben Rutten.

41m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:32am

Ben Rutten has been called to give evidence

Port Adelaide’s GM of football is the latest man to face questioning.

Rutten says he was on the interchange bench and Butters spoke to him as soon as he came to the bench.

“He said that ‘the umpiring out there is disgusting’, so I asked him what’s wrong. He said ‘they’ve reported me and won’t tell me what for’.

“So I asked him what he said, ‘I just said to the umpire surely that’s not a free kick, and he paid a 50m penalty and reported me and won’t give any more information’.

“He came straight to me on the bench and was visibly upset and confused about what had happened.”

45m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:28am

Ollie Wines is again asked what he heard Butters say

Wines is being questioned by the Tribunal now.

“It was along the lines of “how is that a free kick’. Along those lines. We have many conversations with umpires through games, we don’t always agree with decisions. There would have been a few times I would have had that conversation and unfortunately I can’t remember word for word what I said or what he said.

“First of all I had to reassure him he said nothing wrong during the game. Obviously in that quarter he didn’t know what the umpire was alleging, but I could tell him what I heard there was nothing untoward and there was no profanity or anything. We were a but puzzled as to why he had been reported.

“I like to think I have a good moral compass and good integrity. I know what he said, and I don’t have to go to him to get his side of the story because I know what I heard.”

51m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:23am

We’re in the weeds with the Wines questioning now

The AFL is questioning Wines now, and again is speaking to the significance of the game and the size of the crowd.

The AFL is trying to establish the precise moments Wines made his comments, and his proximity to Foot and Butters at those times.

Wines says he said “the majority of the words” to Foot between he and Zak.

There is confusion now because the AFL keeps referencing a whistle as a key demarcation, but we have no sound in these highlights. Wines seems to think the AFL is asking if he and Butters made any comments after the 50m penalty was paid, but I think the AFL is referring to the whistle telling Owens to move on and take his kick.

“Immediately prior to the 50m call I recall him saying, along the same lines as me, ‘how is that a free kick’. Nothing that would normally be paid a 50 against.”

Wines does not agree that the crowd was overly loud at that moment as Owens was lining up his kick. Wines says “he can’t be sure what he said, but I can be sure what he didn’t say. I did not hear anything remotely close.”

59m agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:14am

Ollie Wines says he did not hear Butters make the remarks

Wines says he is “100 per cent confident” and that he “categorically did not hear” Butters say “how much are they paying you?” to Foot.

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:13am

Ollie Wines has been called up to give evidence

Surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the last!

Wines was the only other person within earshot of the incident and is going to be questioned by both Port Adelaide and the AFL.

Wines says he was still unsure what the free kick was for after watching a replay on the big screen. Wines says he remembers asking Foot “do you honestly think that’s a free kick?”, making some variation of that remark multiple times.

Wines is asked what he heard Butters say.

 “Zak was saying along the same lines as me, ‘how do you think that’s a free kick’. I can’t remember the conversation verbatim, but I understand along the same lines.”

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:08am

The AFL continues to question Butters

Butters is being questioned as to exactly what he said and when. Butters says he only made one comment to Foot in regards to the decision made, which was at the precise moment before Foot payed the 50m penalty.

The AFL counsel is now pointing out that the words Butters said he used (“surely that’s not a free kick”) are different to the ones he told to Channel Seven immediately (“how is that a free kick?”) after the game.

The AFL is suggesting that if he is confused about that, he could have actually said “how much are they paying you?”. Butters disagrees with that.

Butters says he left the field after the incident and spoke to club GM Ben Rutten, and told him the words he used were “surely that’s not a free kick”.

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 6:03am

Butters ‘hurt’ by allegations

Butters is asked how the allegations have affected him.

“It hurts me because I know I didn’t say it.”

Butters is now being questioned by the AFL’s legal team. Questions are surrounding the importance of the game, referencing Port’s third-quarter comeback in an attempt to point to Butters’ frustration in the moment.

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 5:59amZak Butters denies saying ‘how much are they paying you?’

Butters says he is “100 per cent sure” he did not use those words.

After the 50m penalty was awarded, Butters says he asked Wines if he had said anything wrong and Wines told him he hadn’t and that he had “heard everything”.

Butters said he initially thought the 50m penalty must have been from an off-ball incident.

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 5:57am

Zak Butters is being questioned now

Butters says he did not know Nick Foot’s name before the game, and was not aware of his outside employment.

Butters says he did not know what the free kick initially payed for, and after watching the replay on the big screen was “still confused and looking for some clarity”.

Butters is asked what he said to Foot in the specific moment in question.

“I recall saying ‘surely that’s not a free kick’.”

“I remember Ollie (Wines) making his way over and remonstrating the free kick in his own way. There was a lot of noise but it was something along the same lines to me.”

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 5:54am

How loud was Butters speaking when the comment was made?

It was made in a “conversational tone”, Foot says. “It was loud enough for me to hear it crystal clear,” he said.

Foot says this comment was made at a lower volume to those he had made about questioning the decision previously.

1h agoTue 14 Apr 2026 at 5:50amFoot is questioned over his relationship with Sportsbet

Port Adelaide suggests that Foot was more sensitive to the potential use of the word “pay” due to his association with Sportsbet. Foot says “he could not disagree more”.

Port Adelaide suggests that Foot has misheard and confused what was said by both Butters and Wines. Foot does not agree.

Port Adelaide suggests this incident has “blown up” and given his integrity is now in question, Foot has been backed into a corner and will refuse to admit he misheard. Foot does not agree.

Foot says he clearly heard what Butters said and identified it was Butters who said it.