The AFL Tribunal has backed umpire Nick Foot over Port Adelaide superstar Zak Butters, with the midfielder found guilty of verbally abusing the official.
Butters receives a $1500 fine having allegedly asked Foot “how much are they paying you?” after a contentious free kick was awarded to St Kilda on Sunday night.
Watch every match of every round of the AFL Premiership Season LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
Foot took that as a suggestion he was being paid by the Saints and a shot at his integrity.
Butters told the Tribunal he said “surely that’s not a free kick”, and his case was backed up by nearby teammate Ollie Wines.
However both Wines and Power GM of footy Ben Rutten were questioned by the AFL about the discrepancy between Butters’ recollection of his comment to Seven post-game, which was “how’s that a free kick?”, compared to his current recollection.
‘I know what I said and what I didn’t!’ | 00:40
It only needed to be found on the balance of probabilities whether Foot or Butters was correct, and the Tribunal did not provide its reasons on Tuesday due to a deadline on proceedings.
However it appeared the Tribunal felt there was enough doubt on Butters’ case to believe Foot instead.
“It hurts me, because I know I didn’t say it,” Butters said.
Albert Dinelli represented the AFL while Kerry Robertson-Clark represented Butters and Port Adelaide in front of Tribunal chair Renee Enbom with jurors Darren Gaspar and Jason Johnson.
Umpire Foot said this was the first time he had cited a player for abusive language in his 269-game AFL umpiring career.
“I ran in to set the mark for the free kick … I entered into a short discussion with Sweet explaining why the decision was paid, my comment was ‘a fistful of jumper’,” Foot explained.
“Once I ensured Owens was on his line of kick for the shot at goal, I backed back 10 metres as we’re instructed to do to allow the set shot at goal to unfold.
“I was approximately a metre away (from Zak Butters). After I blew my whistle to ask player Owens to commence his run-in and shot for goal, the comment that Butters made to me was ‘how much are they paying you?’
“I awarded a 50-metre penalty and signalled in the direction of Butters the sign of dissent or abuse.”
Asked how he interpreted the words, Foot said: “In the context of St Kilda awarding a free kick … I interpreted that as the St Kilda Football Club, or someone involved with St Kilda. It questioned my integrity.
“I’m 100% adamant those were the words Zak Butters said to me.”
Foot said umpires are instructed not to enter discussions regarding reportable offences with players after the game.
“When your integrity is questioned, you don’t forget those words that are said to you.”
Port Adelaide asked if Foot agreed the 47,000-strong crowd at Adelaide Oval was vocal and if he agreed there was a “lot of booing” as a replay was being shown of the free kick, which he did on both fronts. They also pointed out he had an earpiece in one ear and was hearing the other umpires’ voices including a countdown.
Foot said it was possible one of the things Butters said during the incident was “surely that’s not a free kick?” and that Ollie Wines “probably” said something similar while talking over the top of his teammate.
However he “strongly disagreed” that he misheard the abusive comment in question.
Razor reacts to Butters fine | 03:39
“After I blew my whistle, there was a clear air, and that’s when player Butters made the comments. And the only comment came from my left. It could only have been him,” Foot said.
Foot denied he was subconsciously focused on his outside employment with Sportsbet and was “picking up on the word pay in a way that is different to the words in fact used”.
He said it was not possible this was an instance of miscommunication.
Port Adelaide asked if “this whole incident has in effect blown up a little bit to the point where your integrity is now being called into question”,” with Foot agreeing that debate was now occurring publicly.
“And that’s one reason why you are not prepared to admit to the Tribunal that you might be wrong about what was said,” Robertson-Clark said.
“That is incorrect,” Foot said.
“Is another reason that you must stick strictly to what you say was said because you need to justify the 50-metre penalty?” Robertson-Clark said.
“I piad the 50-metre penalty because of what was said,” Foot said.
Zak Butters said he didn’t know Nick Foot’s name before Sunday night and was trying to figure out why the free kick had been paid before watching the replay at the ground.
“I recall saying ‘surely that’s not a free kick’,” Butters said.
“I remember Ollie making his way over to us and remonstrating … there was a lot of noise but it was something along the same lines to me.”
Butters denied saying ‘how much are they paying you’ and said he was “100% sure” he did not say those words.
Butters said he immediately asked Wines “mate, did I say anything wrong?” and Wines looked back and said “no mate, I heard everything”. He then asked Foot “what for?” trying to understand why he had been reported.
He said he conducts himself “in a professional manner” with umpires.
“It hurts me, because I know I didn’t say it,” Butters said of the alleged sledge.
The AFL suggested he can’t be exactly sure what he said but Butters said he is 100 per cent sure.
Butters explained the discrepancy between what he now says he uttered in the moment, and the different words used in a post-game interview, as “summing it up in the moment under a lot of pressure and obviously doing an interview as well”.
He said he alerted GM of football Ben Rutten and teammate Ollie Wines of the exact phrase he used post-game.
Butters tribunal + Gather Round Injuries | 23:37
Wines said he used several variations on “do you honestly think that is a free kick?” when talking to umpire Foot.
“Zak was saying along the same lines as me. I can’t remember the conversation verbatim, but I understand along the same lines, because he was saying the same things as me,” Wines said.
Wines said he “categorically” did not hear Butters say “how much are they paying you?”.
“From my perspective, he’s said nothing at all, he’s just asking why he paid the free kick,” Wines said.
Asked by the AFL how much he heard Butters say, Wines said: “Look, I can’t be sure how many things he said, it was a sentence or two. It was similar to what I said. It was along the lines of questioning the free kick and what he’s saying to pay that.
“I can’t be sure what he said, but I’m adamant what he didn’t say.”
He later added: “It was along the lines of, ‘how is that a free kick?’
“We have many conversations with umpires throughout the game, we don’t always agree with the decision and these things happen a lot. So there probably would’ve been a few times I had that conversation with an umpire and unfortunately I can’t remember word-for-word what I said or what he said.”
Wines said he spoke with Butters post-game to “reassure him that he said nothing wrong throughout the game, let alone after the game … there was no profanity or anything like that”.
Wines said he did not recall Butters telling him exactly the words he used post-game.
Ben Rutten said he spoke to Butters during the third quarter, saying: “he came straight to me and said the umpiring out there was disgusting”, before explaining what happened in the report.
“He beelined straight to the bench to me and was visibly upset. Very emotional and upset about what had happened, we’d just cost the team a goal as well. He was confused about what had happened and why he’d been reported,” Rutten said.
Leigh doubts HUGE Butters price tag | 02:30
The AFL submitted Foot immediately awarding the 50-metre penalty was “entirely consistent with what was said to him meeting the language of the charge, insulting language.
“On the other hand, and we don’t put it as anything other than the issues that can arise from the heat of the moment on a football ground … the Tribunal will note the language he now says today he used, ‘surely that’s not a free kick’, and the language he used after the game, ‘how is that a free kick’?” Dinelli said for the AFL.
The AFL also questioned the timing of Butters’ statements given in evidence, suggesting there was a difference between Butters’ evidence (he “only said one thing” leading up to the 50-metre penalty) and Wines’ evidence (there were multiple comments), saying while they don’t believe they’re misleading the Tribunal but there’s “real doubt about what was said and when”.
“The fact his recollection has varied over time is something that should cause the Tribunal to pause before accepting his evidence,” Dinelli said.
The AFL said it was “implausible” that Wines could hear what Butters was saying but that the microphone Foot was wearing couldn’t pick it up.
Butters referred to Tribunal | 02:02
Port Adelaide said Butters and Wines’ evidence was “generally consistent” and that whether Butters said “how is that a free kick” or “surely that’s not a free kick”, “neither of them is anywhere close to the alleged words in the charge”.
These were described by Robertson-Clark for Butters as “benign statements … it’s understandable that neither of them can recall with 100% accuracy the precise words that were used, because why would you?
“In the event something truly insulting or abusive had been said, it’s far more likely in my subsmission they would recall what had been said.”
Robertson-Clark said “it’s a very serious finding to say both of these respected players have come to the tribunal and lied about what was said”.
The Power “assumed in the aftermath of this the audio might be able to be found from one source or another. So it would be very brave and unusual for him to be telling either Mr Rutten or the journalist Mr McGuire about what he said … if you’re thinking the audio will come out.”
They also made the case Foot could not hear entirely clearly due to his earpiece.
Separately, the AFL Tribunal met today to determine Lance Collard’s eventual nine-week suspension after he was found guilty of conduct unbecoming for using a homophobic slur during a VFL game.