![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/poster-fallback.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n
Foot took that as a suggestion he was being paid by the Saints and a shot at his integrity.<\/p>\n
Butters told the Tribunal he said \u201csurely that\u2019s not a free kick\u201d, and his case was backed up by nearby teammate Ollie Wines.<\/p>\n
However both Wines and Power GM of footy Ben Rutten were questioned by the AFL about the discrepancy between Butters\u2019 recollection of his comment to Seven post-game, which was \u201chow’s that a free kick?\u201d, compared to his current recollection.<\/p>\n
‘I know what I said and what I didn’t!’ | 00:40<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
However it appeared the Tribunal felt there was enough doubt on Butters\u2019 case to believe Foot instead.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt hurts me, because I know I didn\u2019t say it,\u201d Butters said.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Umpire Foot said this was the first time he had cited a player for abusive language in his 269-game AFL umpiring career.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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 \u2018a fistful of jumper\u2019,\u201d Foot explained.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce I ensured Owens was on his line of kick for the shot at goal, I backed back 10 metres as we\u2019re instructed to do to allow the set shot at goal to unfold.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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 \u2018how much are they paying you?\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201cI awarded a 50-metre penalty and signalled in the direction of Butters the sign of dissent or abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked how he interpreted the words, Foot said: \u201cIn 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m 100% adamant those were the words Zak Butters said to me.\u201d<\/p>\n
Foot said umpires are instructed not to enter discussions regarding reportable offences with players after the game.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen your integrity is questioned, you don\u2019t forget those words that are said to you.\u201d<\/p>\n
Port Adelaide asked if Foot agreed the 47,000-strong crowd at Adelaide Oval was vocal and if he agreed there was a \u201clot of booing\u201d 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\u2019 voices including a countdown.<\/p>\n
Foot said it was possible one of the things Butters said during the incident was \u201csurely that\u2019s not a free kick?\u201d and that Ollie Wines \u201cprobably\u201d said something similar while talking over the top of his teammate.<\/p>\n
However he \u201cstrongly disagreed\u201d that he misheard the abusive comment in question.<\/p>\n
Razor reacts to Butters fine | 03:39<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter I blew my whistle, there was a clear air, and that\u2019s when player Butters made the comments. And the only comment came from my left. It could only have been him,\u201d Foot said.<\/p>\n
Foot denied he was subconsciously focused on his outside employment with Sportsbet and was \u201cpicking up on the word pay in a way that is different to the words in fact used\u201d.<\/p>\n
He said it was not possible this was an instance of miscommunication.<\/p>\n
Port Adelaide asked if \u201cthis whole incident has in effect blown up a little bit to the point where your integrity is now being called into question\u201d,\u201d with Foot agreeing that debate was now occurring publicly.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd that\u2019s one reason why you are not prepared to admit to the Tribunal that you might be wrong about what was said,\u201d Robertson-Clark said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is incorrect,\u201d Foot said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIs another reason that you must stick strictly to what you say was said because you need to justify the 50-metre penalty?\u201d Robertson-Clark said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI piad the 50-metre penalty because of what was said,\u201d Foot said.<\/p>\n
Zak Butters said he didn\u2019t know Nick Foot\u2019s name before Sunday night and was trying to figure out why the free kick had been paid before watching the replay at the ground.<\/p>\n
\u201cI recall saying \u2018surely that\u2019s not a free kick\u2019,\u201d Butters said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Butters denied saying \u2018how much are they paying you\u2019 and said he was \u201c100% sure\u201d he did not say those words.<\/p>\n
Butters said he immediately asked Wines \u201cmate, did I say anything wrong?\u201d and Wines looked back and said \u201cno mate, I heard everything\u201d. He then asked Foot \u201cwhat for?\u201d trying to understand why he had been reported.<\/p>\n
He said he conducts himself \u201cin a professional manner\u201d with umpires.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt hurts me, because I know I didn\u2019t say it,\u201d Butters said of the alleged sledge.<\/p>\n
The AFL suggested he can\u2019t be exactly sure what he said but Butters said he is 100 per cent sure.<\/p>\n
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 \u201csumming it up in the moment under a lot of pressure and obviously doing an interview as well\u201d.<\/p>\n
He said he alerted GM of football Ben Rutten and teammate Ollie Wines of the exact phrase he used post-game.<\/p>\n
Butters tribunal + Gather Round Injuries | 23:37<\/p>\n
Wines said he used several variations on \u201cdo you honestly think that is a free kick?\u201d when talking to umpire Foot.<\/p>\n
\u201cZak was saying along the same lines as me. I can\u2019t remember the conversation verbatim, but I understand along the same lines, because he was saying the same things as me,\u201d Wines said.<\/p>\n
Wines said he \u201ccategorically\u201d did not hear Butters say \u201chow much are they paying you?\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom my perspective, he\u2019s said nothing at all, he\u2019s just asking why he paid the free kick,\u201d Wines said.<\/p>\n
Asked by the AFL how much he heard Butters say, Wines said: \u201cLook, I can\u2019t 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\u2019s saying to pay that.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can\u2019t be sure what he said, but I\u2019m adamant what he didn\u2019t say.\u201d<\/p>\n
He later added: \u201cIt was along the lines of, \u2018how is that a free kick?\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have many conversations with umpires throughout the game, we don\u2019t always agree with the decision and these things happen a lot. So there probably would\u2019ve been a few times I had that conversation with an umpire and unfortunately I can\u2019t remember word-for-word what I said or what he said.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wines said he spoke with Butters post-game to \u201creassure him that he said nothing wrong throughout the game, let alone after the game … there was no profanity or anything like that\u201d.<\/p>\n
Wines said he did not recall Butters telling him exactly the words he used post-game.<\/p>\n
Ben Rutten said he spoke to Butters during the third quarter, saying: \u201che came straight to me and said the umpiring out there was disgusting\u201d, before explaining what happened in the report.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe beelined straight to the bench to me and was visibly upset. Very emotional and upset about what had happened, we\u2019d just cost the team a goal as well. He was confused about what had happened and why he\u2019d been reported,\u201d Rutten said.<\/p>\n
Leigh doubts HUGE Butters price tag | 02:30<\/p>\n
The AFL submitted Foot immediately awarding the 50-metre penalty was \u201centirely consistent with what was said to him meeting the language of the charge, insulting language.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the other hand, and we don\u2019t 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, \u2018surely that\u2019s not a free kick\u2019, and the language he used after the game, \u2018how is that a free kick\u2019?\u201d Dinelli said for the AFL.<\/p>\n
The AFL also questioned the timing of Butters\u2019 statements given in evidence, suggesting there was a difference between Butters\u2019 evidence (he \u201conly said one thing\u201d leading up to the 50-metre penalty) and Wines\u2019 evidence (there were multiple comments), saying while they don\u2019t believe they\u2019re misleading the Tribunal but there\u2019s \u201creal doubt about what was said and when\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact his recollection has varied over time is something that should cause the Tribunal to pause before accepting his evidence,\u201d Dinelli said.<\/p>\n
The AFL said it was \u201cimplausible\u201d that Wines could hear what Butters was saying but that the microphone Foot was wearing couldn\u2019t pick it up.<\/p>\n
Butters referred to Tribunal | 02:02<\/p>\n
Port Adelaide said Butters and Wines\u2019 evidence was \u201cgenerally consistent\u201d and that whether Butters said \u201chow is that a free kick\u201d or \u201csurely that\u2019s not a free kick\u201d, \u201cneither of them is anywhere close to the alleged words in the charge\u201d.<\/p>\n
These were described by Robertson-Clark for Butters as \u201cbenign statements … it\u2019s understandable that neither of them can recall with 100% accuracy the precise words that were used, because why would you?<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the event something truly insulting or abusive had been said, it\u2019s far more likely in my subsmission they would recall what had been said.\u201d<\/p>\n
Robertson-Clark said \u201cit\u2019s a very serious finding to say both of these respected players have come to the tribunal and lied about what was said\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Power \u201cassumed 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\u2019re thinking the audio will come out.\u201d<\/p>\n
They also made the case Foot could not hear entirely clearly due to his earpiece.<\/p>\n