Aggressive fallout has ensued following Zak Butters’ $1,500 fine for umpire abuse on Tuesday night, as the Port Adelaide superstar remains “completely filthy” with the AFL Tribunal’s finding.
Butters received the fine after allegedly asking umpire Nick 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.
The 25-year-old provided a short statement after the finding outside Alberton Oval on Tuesday evening, saying: “I’m clearly disappointed with the result tonight. I stand by knowing what I said and what I didn’t say, especially what I didn’t say. I’d like to thank the club for their support. Thank you.”
Dissecting the Tribunal’s verdict on Fox Footy’s Midweek Tackle, panellist Jon Ralph revealed the Power’s next steps in defending Butters.
“It’s still mind-blowing how far those two statements are apart. I’ve spoken to Port Adelaide, they are angry and bemused. It’s fair to say that Zak Butters is completely filthy,” Ralph said.
“There are two options for them to consider (for an appeal). That no Tribunal could reasonably have come to this decision, or it’s an error of law. Clearly, the former is much more enticing in regards to a Tribunal case or appeal that would come out on Thursday.
“It would be a $10,000 fee. It is the easiest $10,000 decision that this club has ever made, to try and defend the honour of Zak. Their feeling is they can make this decision because Zak is playing on Saturday. We can remove him from the process, he doesn’t have to be involved in it, and in the background we defend his honour.
‘I know what I said and what I didn’t!’ | 00:40
“The AFLPA is ropeable as well. Their CEO James Gallagher, who is new in the job, will come off the top row in defence of Butters. He has already spoken to Zak, who is incandescent with rage. It’s time for James Gallagher to make a really strong stand in regards to the AFL. It is a tough case with no winners.”
Butters’ case was peculiarly held alongside that of St Kilda player Lance Collard, who was handed a nine-week suspension (two weeks suspended) after being found guilty of using an anti-gay slur in a VFL match last month.
Another unspoken negative within what looms as an inevitable appeal from Port Adelaide though, is the cost of lawyers and those involved in the hearings process revealed Midweek Tackle host Lauren Wood.
“You would have to argue the winners were the lawyers. The protracted nature of this means that the cost to the game becomes astronomical. The cost to the league, the cost to the clubs,” Wood said.
“I spoke to someone who works really closely in this field, and has intimate knowledge of the Tribunal system. They estimated that tonight’s hearing, which went for just over two hours, would be $30,000 minimum by their estimation.
“We know that a lot of these representatives often have club links, so there’s not necessarily the full back rate at different times … but the overall cost to the landscape is astronomical.”
Umpire audio for Butters abuse charge | 01:54
Earlier on Fox Footy AFL 360 host Gerard Whateley dissected what he believes was what ultimately saw Butters fined by the Tribunal, as he and teammate Ollie Wines protested innocence.
“This is the problem that I’ve seen routinely with players. There ended up being gentle inconsistencies between Butters and Wines’ version of events,” Whateley began.
“How much did Butters say as he was led through the cross-examination? He settled on that he said only one thing, and it couldn’t have been any other moment than when the 50-metre penalty was paid. Wines said that he (Butters) said a few things along the way.
“Wines spoke much more than Butters did throughout. Butters said that he didn’t really hear everything that Wines said, Wines said he heard everything that Butters said.”
Frustratingly for all parties, no audio was detected from Foot’s umpire microphone, despite clear wording from him and players on either side of the incident.
Ultimately, it saw Foot vindicated in his testimony despite the two players protesting against the one umpire’s recollection.
Butters tribunal + Gather Round Injuries | 23:37
“The microphone picked up none of it. It was described as the ‘gaping hole’ in the evidence, which is quite right. But, it didn’t pick up anything Wines said as well as nothing Butters said,” Whateley added.
“If you had to come to a verdict singularly on the testimony that was offered and the quality of the evidence, you would have come down on the side of the umpire. How that serves the overall, and whether that’s a satisfactory outcome … Everyone will have their own mind on that.
“It’s entirely possible that if Butters muttered something at the end, Wines wouldn’t have heard it … it’s very unsatisfactory to be honest, having sat through it. But, if you had to land one way or the other, it was going to land with the more compelling witness.”
Melbourne great Garry Lyon added : “Well then the fine is light. If the AFL have come to a conclusion, whether you agree or disagree with it, then they are saying that it is right that Zak Butters has accused Foot of being paid to pay free kicks deliberately. Therefore, $1,500 is light!
“Of course it is (a smart alec comment) remark … but maybe they realised it was hard to come to an agreement, so they gave him the $1,500 and got on with it.”
Former Collingwood and Carlton player Dale Thomas was fined $7,500 back in 2019 for calling a boundary umpire a “f***ing cheat” during a game against GWS.
Frustratingly for the Power, the club will need to wait until tomorrow for the Tribunal’s explanation on its guilty ruling for Butters, halting their chance to file for an appeal.
Discussion about this post