{"id":609008,"date":"2026-04-15T18:31:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T18:31:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/609008\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T18:31:23","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T18:31:23","slug":"afl-tribunal-reveals-crucial-reasons-behind-zak-butters-guilty-verdict-for-umpire-abuse-towards-nick-foot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/609008\/","title":{"rendered":"AFL tribunal reveals crucial reasons behind Zak Butters\u2019 guilty verdict for umpire abuse towards Nick Foot"},"content":{"rendered":"

The AFL<\/a> tribunal has explained its decision to find Zak Butters guilty of umpire abuse.<\/a><\/p>\n

At a tribunal hearing on Tuesday night, Butters\u2019 charge against umpire Nick Foot was upheld after the whistleblower reported the Port Adelaide superstar for questioning his integrity following a contentious free kick during the Power\u2019s Sunday night loss to St Kilda.<\/p>\n

WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: Zak Butters fined for umpire abuse<\/p>\n

Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today Arrow<\/a><\/p>\n

It means Butters has been fined $1500 for umpire abuse. Port Adelaide are still considering their position and whether or not they will appeal the decision.<\/p>\n

Given the duration of Tuesday night\u2019s marathon hearing, the tribunal released only its decision, not the explanation.<\/p>\n

But in a statement on Wednesday, the AFL revealed the three-person tribunal\u2019s reasoning.<\/p>\n

\u201cOn a careful consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Butters made the offending comment,\u201d the statements reads.<\/p>\n

Butters gave evidence that he made only one comment to Foot, and that the comment was: \u201cSurely that\u2019s not a free kick\u201d.<\/p>\n

Foot\u2019s evidence refuted that claim, saying he was \u201c100 per cent adamant\u201d that Butters had said, \u201cHow much are they paying you?\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"ZakZak Butters was found guilty of umpire abuse. Credit: Seven<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is implausible that Mr Foot would invent the offending comment and it was not put to him that he had done so. It was put to him that there were several distractions and that he had misheard what Mr Butters said,\u201d the tribunal\u2019s statement continued.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe also consider that to be implausible. It is implausible that Mr Foot misheard the words \u2018Surely that\u2019s not a free kick\u2019 as \u2018How much are they paying you?\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of the words that Mr Butters said he spoke are any of the words that Mr Foot believes he heard. Mr Foot was certain as to what he heard.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also working against Butters\u2019 case was that teammate Ollie Wines, who himself was remonstrating with the umpire over the decision on Saturday night, gave evidence that Butters made more than one comment.<\/p>\n

Wines\u2019s evidence was inconsistent with that of Butters, but appears consistent with the vision of the incident.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe reject Mr Butters\u2019 evidence that he only made one comment about the free kick against player Sweet (\u201cSurely that\u2019s not a free kick\u201d) and that his only comment was made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to move the ball on,\u201d the tribunal explained.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe evidence as to him only making that one comment is contrary to the evidence of Mr Foot who said that Mr Butters made more than one comment.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was also not Mr Wines\u2019 evidence that he only heard Mr Butters comment to Mr Foot on one occasion. Consistent with Mr Foot\u2019s evidence, Mr Wines said that he heard Mr Butters comment on the free kick more than once.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe also accept the AFL\u2019s submission that it would be peculiar for Mr Butters to make his only comment about the umpiring decision just before the St Kilda player took his free kick. This is because Mr Butters appears in the vision to be unhappy with the umpiring decision as soon as it was made, he told the Tribunal he was very frustrated with the decision and he stood close to Mr Foot for some time including while Mr Wines was himself complaining about the decision.<\/p>\n

\"ZakZak Butters was put on report by Nick Foot for abusive language. Credit: Channel 7<\/p>\n

\u201cWe find that Mr Butters made more than one comment to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision and that his final comment, made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move on with his free kick, was the offending comment.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not surprising that Mr Wines did not hear the offending comment. Mr Foot\u2019s unchallenged evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment at a lower volume than his earlier comments.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not find it surprising or unusual that Mr Foot\u2019s microphone did not capture the comments made by Mr Butters or Mr Wines. It is apparent from the vision that the microphone did not capture all that was said by players during the events. There are many possible reasons for that, including the positioning of players to the microphone.\u201d<\/p>\n

A slight variation in the separate accounts Butters gave to Channel 7 and to the tribunal was not a factor in the tribunal\u2019s decision because \u201cthe difference was minor\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cFinally, and for completeness, we do not consider the variation in Mr Butters\u2019 accounts of what he said was his only comment to be of any significance,\u201d the statement goes on.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe told the media that he had said something different to what he told Mr Rutten and the Tribunal he had said. The difference was minor. The variation was of no assistance in determining whether Mr Butters had made the additional offending comment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Port Adelaide are yet to confirm whether they will appeal the decision, but Power chair David Koch is \u201cpretty certain\u201d they will.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe\u2019s incredibly angry with the outcome. He quite rightly believes he\u2019s been dubbed a liar in all this,\u201d Koch told Adelaide radio station 5AA on Wednesday of Butters\u2019 reaction to the guilty verdict.<\/p>\n

AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher said the organisation was \u201cdeeply disappointed\u201d by the tribunal outcome.<\/p>\n

\u201cA misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the tribunal,\u201d Gallagher said in a statement.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak\u2019s version of events …nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning.\u201d<\/p>\n

AFL Umpires Association chief executive Rob Kerr defended Foot.<\/p>\n

\u201cNick Foot has never wavered from his account,\u201d Kerr said in a statement.<\/p>\n

\u201cHis response to what he perceived was said was entirely consistent with the expectations placed on umpires charged with protecting the game\u2019s integrity.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd he has behaved appropriately through each step of this process at the cost of significant personal discomfort, particularly with some of the online vitriol.\u201d<\/p>\n

– With AAP<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Port Adelaide \u2018furious\u2019 as Zak Butters fallout takes fresh twist<\/p>\n

4 min read<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Zak Butters found guilty of umpire abuse in landmark hearing<\/p>\n

2 min read<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Play Video<\/p>\n

Port Adelaide midfielder Zak Butters has been fined $1,500 for umpire abuse after being reported for asking an umpire “how much are they paying you?” The club is considering an appeal as Butters maintains he was misheard.<\/p>\n

Port Adelaide midfielder Zak Butters has been fined $1,500 for umpire abuse after being reported for asking an umpire “how much are they paying you?” The club is considering an appeal as Butters maintains he was misheard.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The AFL tribunal has explained its decision to find Zak Butters guilty of umpire abuse. At a tribunal…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":609009,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[560],"tags":[638,64,63,55,639,1625,46529,3863,588,85,26889],"class_list":["post-609008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-afl","tag-afl","tag-au","tag-australia","tag-australian-football-league","tag-australianfootballleague","tag-lifestyle","tag-port-adelaide-football-club","tag-sponsored-content","tag-sport","tag-sports","tag-st-kilda-saints"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/609008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=609008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/609008\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/609009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=609008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=609008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=609008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}