AFL 360 hosts Gerard Whateley and Garry Lyon have strongly questioned the “compromised” nature of Zak Butters’ Tribunal hearing.
It came as a juror in the hearing was called into question for being in transit for a portion of Tuesday’s events.
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 Tribunal found Butters asked field umpire Nick Foot “how much are they paying you?” after a contentious free kick was awarded to St Kilda on Sunday night.
Port Adelaide confirmed on Wednesday night that it would appeal the $1,500 fine handed to Butters.
But on Wednesday night, Whateley raised two major flaws with Tuesday’s proceedings — the first of which was juror Jason Johnson, a former Essendon 184-gamer, tuning in from his car during a crucial time in the hearing.
“There are greater concerns, I think, with the way that this case has been staged and heard, which, fundamentally, undermine where we come to as a conclusive piece,” Whateley said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.
“The first of those … one of the jurors, Jason Johnson, was in transit during the climax of the case. He dropped out at one stage.”
Lyon chimed in, remarking it was “embarrassing at worst” that a juror would be in transit instead of intently listening to the contents of the hearing.
“If your reputation is on the line, and it’s a hotly-disputed argument, and there’s a level of detail that needs to be absorbed, I don’t want the bloke who’s sitting in judgement of me … in his car, in transit,” Lyon said.
“I want them sitting down, taking copious amounts of notes, cross-referencing, listening intently, and not being distracted by what may or may not be going on in the outside world because you’re in a car, and the fact you may go past the local McDonald’s and the service drops out.
“It’s embarrassing at worst, and how would that wash on the world stage? This is a multi-billionaire-dollar business.”
Lyon added the whole situation makes the AFL “look like a circus” on the world stage, given the seriousness of the incidents that the Tribunal decides on.
“We are demanding the absolute best in every aspect of what we do in the football community, and the world stage comes in and watches this … and where are the people who are going to pass judgement on this? Oh, one of them’s in the car. What’s that look like?” he said.
“I’m not having a crack at Jason Johnson, apparently it got changed around and all that sort of stuff, but we’ve got to be better than, Gerard.
“You can’t be having a juror who’s about to pass judgement on the hottest case going around … and where’s the bloke? He had to go, he’s in the car. Come on. That just makes us look like a circus.”
Whateley said that the AFL spoke to Johnson on Wednesday, with the two-time Bombers club champion conceding the optics weren’t good.
“He acknowledged that he was in transit and it isn’t optimal,” Whateley said.
“He maintains that he didn’t miss any of the evidence, but the AFL concedes that the optics aren’t great there.”
Whateley also delved into the technical shortcomings of the hearing, where the audio of the two whistles from umpire Foot last Sunday couldn’t be played.
“The second aspect was during the hearing, the key elements were two whistles — one, which was to give Owens the hurry-up, and the second, which was the 50-metre penalty — but when the vision was played to each witness, the audio (of the whistles) wasn’t there,” he continued.
“It led to apologies, as ‘you won’t be able to hear the whistles, but these are the two markers’. And it led to confusion.
“Ollie Wines got completely confused at one stage as to which whistle he was supposed to be referring to, and the case stopped and everyone acknowledged that.
“I actually did think it played a role in Butters’ (submissions) … he lost his way during the cross-examination, and I think not being able to listen to the two whistles, which were the absolute key markers of the AFL’s case, played a role. Just not good enough.”
Whateley also lamented the “unprecedented” fact that Butters’ case was occurring at the same time as Lance Collard’s disciplinary hearing, which resulted in a 21-hour waiting game.
“There were two (hearings) clashing at the same time, which meant that a hearing that would typically be at 5.00pm had to be shuffled forward,” he said.
“That meant there was a closing time of 5.45, which allowed for a 30-minute deliberation only … and meant that the findings couldn’t be released simultaneously last night, and that opened up a 21-hour void … and by then, the conversation had spiralled too far out of control.
“If Port Adelaide go ahead with its appeal — this is a $1,500 fine, I would expect the legal bills to land between $25,000-35,000 that have been spent on a case that has so many flaws in it.”
Asked by Lyon what his verdict would be, Whateley declared that the entire case should be “annulled” with no finding.
“I would start with emotion, if I was Port Adelaide’s advocate, just to have the whole case annulled,” he said.
“It’s too compromised to give you any capacity to reach a just and fair outcome. Too many flaws.
“This should just be dismissed and annulled with no finding, either way. There are too many flaws in this process to be able to come to an outcome that reputations hang on, and the football world is entranced by.”
It’s not yet known when Butters’ appeal will be heard.
Discussion about this post