Butters to face tribunal after alleged umpire abuse

Zak Butters will now face the tribunal after allegedly abusing umpire Nick Foot during Port Adelaide's loss to St Kilda.

In the third quarter of the match, Power’s acting captain, Butters, was reported by Foot for abusive language, which saw a 50-metre penalty paid against the home side at the Adelaide Oval.

The decision resulted in an easy goal for Mitch Owens, who had drawn a questionable free kick from Jordon Sweet in a ruck contest, just as the Power were getting some even footing in the contest.

Butters said he simply asked Foot why the initial free kick was paid, with it being alleged that the star midfielder said: “How much are they paying you?”

The tribunal hearing will take place on Tuesday

Morris: Butters allegedly questioned Foot's integrity

SEN's Tom Morris is reporting that umpire Nick Foot believes his integrity was questioned by Port Adelaide’s Zak Butters on Sunday night.

Morris suggests that whatever Butters said compelled Foot to penalise the Power star, but there is no audio available of the incident to clear it up.

"While it’s not yet clear precisely what Nick Foot believed Zak Butters said to him, what has become clear is that Butters (allegedly) questioned his integrity as an umpire," Morris posted on X.

"Foot has claimed he did so without using the word ‘cheat’. Lawyers involved, a possible tribunal hearing awaits.

"Butters & Port denying anything untoward & no audio available of the alleged remarks."

Channel 7 Adelaide's Josh Money suggests the Power believes there is a "breakdown in communication" and that Foot might have mistaken the use of the word 'pay' or 'paid' to be questioning his integrity.

Foot can be heard saying: “I’ve reported you, I’m reporting you.”

Butters quickly replied: “For what?”

Butters would then approach Foot after the final siren but the umpire was not interested in conversing with the three-time best and fairest.

The AFL has “absolutely no choice” but to clean up the mess that is the Butters-Foot situation.

In the aftermath of the decision, Butters spoke to Channel 7 to explain why he approached Foot while denying that he abused the match official.

“I’d love to know the language that I said because I went up to him after the game and obviously wanted to have a chat like any two humans do,” Butters told Xander McGuire.

“He said he didn’t want to speak to me. All I said was ‘how is that a free kick?’, and he gave 50 and said I’m on report. I had a few teammates right next to me, Ollie Wines, so I’m curious to follow that one up because I’m never going to say anything bad to the umpires.

“So I just wanted to follow up and ask what he thought I said.”

McGuire asked if Butters used any expletives directed at Foot.

“Genuinely no swear words or any bad language. That’s why I was curious,” he replied.

“Obviously, I was a bit frustrated because it leads to a goal, and I think I’m a pretty honest bloke out there and have a good relationship with most umpires.

“I’m sure the club will deal with that.”

Butters insisted he would fight any charge if it was forthcoming.

“I’d fight for the hills because I know what I said and I know I didn’t say anything bad,” he said confidently.

SEN Fireball’s Kane Cornes and David King discussed the incident on Monday morning.

Cornes says the AFL simply must let the public know what transpired between Foot and Butters.

Cornes: “Pretty convincing I would have thought.

“I wouldn’t have thought Zak Butters is going to stake his reputation if he wasn’t adamant that nothing had been said.

“We need clarification quickly from the AFL on this one, there needs to be a statement released really quickly because it was a crucial decision.

“You can’t have a player placed on report for saying, ‘What was that for?’”

King: “The whole thing's weird, isn't it.

“I just wonder what the word is. The he said, he said with Lance Collard who has been found guilty when he's stuck to his story the whole way through.

“What has Zak Butters said?”

Cornes: “So the difference here is that there's multiple witnesses you would think.”

King: “So has he abused the umpire, is that what they're saying?”

Cornes: “I’m saying he hasn't. The umpire thinks he has, though. So what has the umpire thought he said?”

King: “He would have to have called him a cheat or something.”

Cornes: “It would have to be words that strong because a 50-metre penalty is one thing for abusive language. So that would be a swear word or ‘you idiot’ or something like that.

“To actually be placed on report for abusive language is another level. So what's the level that he thinks he's gone to to not only pay a free kick and a 50 for abusive language, but to then actually report him?

“And Butters is the captain of the club standing there on free-to-air television in front of a million people saying ‘I didn't say it’ or ‘whatever he thinks I said I didn’t, I’m an honest person, Ollie Wines has heard me, I've spoken to the club’. Ollie's very much willing to testify that Butters has said what was that for.

“So the AFL has got to clean up this mess. And then after the game, for the umpire not to engage with a captain of a club. I would ask the question, if that was Scott Pendlebury, or if that was Marcus Bontempelli, would the AFL umpire engage with him? The captain of the club after the game, who's calmly gone up to him, said, ‘Mate, you've just reported me for abusive language, this is what I said. What did you think I would have said?’

“I would have thought that's an important conversation to have post-game.”

King: “I think you're entitled to know at any point what the report is for. Immediately if he asks, an hour later if he asked post-game, whatever.

“You have to be informed of what the report is actually about .”

Cornes: “So if the umpire has botched this, and they've got microphones on clearly because we hear their decision-making process in broadcast. Now those mics get turned up and turned down.

“He's wearing a microphone so there there has to be audio.”

King: “So if Zak has said something it'll be on that tape.”

Cornes: “Correct. So we need the AFL to release the tape and then we can judge for ourselves what has been said.

“And if has botched this, Nick Foot, what's what's the ramifications for him? Because that is a big decision to make.”

King: “If it's just an error, we live with that, don't we?”

Cornes: “But then he's placed him on report, he's made a big song and dance about it, he hasn't engaged with Zak after the game, what's the ramifications? Because it's big for Zak, there's a certain level of shame that comes with when you let your team down at a crucial time.

“So what's the ramifications for the umpire?

“It’s a big morning for the AFL. They sometimes release decision-making errors, sometimes they don’t.

“With this one they have absolutely no choice but to go back and listen to the tape and release what was actually said.”