The allegation that appeared on the AFL’s official press release is Zak Butters said to umpire Nick Foot: “How much are they paying you?”
Yet Port Adelaide and Butters are “unambiguously adamant” in denying the “misheard and misconstrue” claims.
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.
And crucially, there’s no audio to prove either one correct.
It makes for a truly fascinating tribunal case after Sunday night’s controversial ending to Gather Round that saw Butters placed on report for directing abuse at Foot in the heat of battle during Port Adelaide’s clash with St Kilda.
But also an ugly ‘he says, he says’ case where one of the two parties will effectively be deemed a “liar.”
‘Neither of them are backing down’ Lyon | 06:27
Herald Sun reporter Jon Ralph explained the sequence of events on a “day of high drama” at AFL House on Monday.
“This is Lance Collard 2.0, because those two versions of the event are so diametrically opposed,” Ralph said on Fox Footy’s AFL Tonight.
“It was a day of high drama at AFL House. Initially it was believed maybe Foot just misheard what Butters said, Butters was so categoric on TV. Foot lodged the complaint and the AFL considered their options .
“Port Adelaide did well to say Zak maybe he said: ‘Where did they pluck that from?’ Or ‘how did they pay that free kick?’
“But when Foot got back into Melbourne, he was so categoric about it. He wasn’t prepared to back down from his allegation that was much stronger.
“And ‘how much are they paying you’ goes to the absolute heart of his integrity. It’s not a cheating allegation, but it’s pretty much getting there in his point of view.
“The AFL gave both parties a couple of hours to consider and if someone wanted to concede their ground, they knew a tribunal hearing would be potentially damaging. But both parties stuck fat and that’s where we are tomorrow night.”
Leigh doubts HUGE Butters price tag | 02:30
Ralph said the “elephant in the room” is that Foot is employed by Sportsbet and does racing tips, which the AFL has given him approval to do.
“It’s meant he’s suffered a torrent of abuse online today, people making all kinds of comments,” Ralph added.
“But Butters, by all accounts, didn’t know that connection. So it wasn’t like it was an off-handed quip about that, he wasn’t aware of it.
“The AFL higher ups say (Foot is) a man of great integrity, he knows the line, he knows the risk, he goes nowhere near football betting or anything like that, even football tips.
“So, Foot isn’t some kind of shrinking violet who would have been upset by someone quipping at him. He’s a person who has umpired nearly 270 AFL games including the 2024 Grand Final.
“He would not be following through on this complaint if he wasn’t absolutely explicit about what he thought was said and I imagine he’d make that case really strongly tomorrow night.
“Unfortunately for Zak Butters, even though it’s maybe only a couple of thousand dollars in terms of a fine, I think it’s really hard to see how the AFL and AFL Tribunal won’t back their man to the hill.”
Could Caddy be Tassie’s marquee signing? | 01:08
Port Adelaide added in its statement that it was “disappointed” Foot refused Butters attempts to seek clarification in another curious layer.
Clearly, it’s a case that is going to come down to semantics, as put by former Demons skipper Garry Lyon.
“What I’ve learned over many, many years is, it’s not what Zak thinks he said, it’s how it’s received,” Lyon said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.
“We might think it’s a smart alec remark. (Foot) might think: ‘No, I’m an independent arbiter, this is my job. You’re suggesting I’m getting paid. So let’s deal with that.
“It depends where you sit.
“Once upon a time the racial abuse used to be: ‘Get over it’.
“It’s not about who’s saying it, it’s about who’s receiving it and how they receive it.”
Elsewhere, Tigers champion Jack Riewoldt feared it was a “lose-lose” scenario where “no one wins.”
But Riewoldt thinks Foot is in a more favourable position with the backing of the AFL.
“How on earth do you get to some sort of result out of this?,” Riewoldt posed on Fox Footy’s On the Couch.
“When all is said and done, either Zak Butters is going to be a liar, or Nick Foot is going to be a liar. And they’ve got to live with that for the rest of their careers.
“There’s a lot at play with this.
“My belief is Zak Butters is a bit of a sitting duck here with the way the AFL has worded their strong stance behind Nick Foot.”
Cox: “It would be great to stand alone!” | 02:00
Collingwood legend Nathan Buckley questioned if the case would’ve been better served with a “conversation behind closed doors in a mediation sense,” rather than a tribunal hearing.
“It speaks a bit to the player-umpire relationship, does it not?,” Buckley added.
“I think that’s been fractured in many ways for a couple of decades.
“It’s getting better and better, umpires are spending more time down at clubs in pre-season.
“That relationship is real important to continue to foster.”
Port Adelaide teammate Ollie Wines could also have a key role to play in Tuesday night’s hearing as the only other person in the vicinity of the exchange.
Four-time premiership Hawk Jordan Lewis suggested Wines’ testimony might prove key, before questioning Foot’s unwillingness to speak with Butters post match.
“Ollie Wines is standing right there. In this instance, it doesn’t look demonstrative. But Ollie Wines has got to hear it,” Lewis said.
“A third person that comes into that conversation could prove Butters innocent or guilty.
“I would’ve liked Nick Foot to explain then and there what he thought Zak Butters had said and tried to have that conversation.
“To be a bit dismissive and run away and say I’m reporting you, that just leaves a player in limbo.
“I think we’re old enough and big enough to have a conversation the and there on what was said and potentially how he felt.”
Discussion about this post