Updated ,first published
The AFL tribunal argued it was implausible that field umpire Nick Foot would have claimed he had been abused if he hadn’t been, as the division between players and umpires became even wider in the aftermath of the Zak Butters controversy.
The league released its written findings on Wednesday, Butters having been fined $1500 for alleged abusive or insulting language towards an official in Sunday’s clash between the Power and St Kilda.
The guilty finding left Butters and his family seething, with Power chairman David Koch declaring Butters had effectively been “dubbed a liar”.
The case featured conflicting evidence from Foot, Butters and another Power star Ollie Wines. Experienced umpire Foot alleged that he heard the Power player say, “How much are they paying you?” before he paid a 50-metre penalty and reported Butters.
The Power midfielder claimed he had made only one comment to Foot, and that had not been the key statement alleged.
In the judgment handed down by tribunal chair Renee Enbom, KC, and fellow panellists, former players Jason Johnson and Darren Gaspar, the panel said: “On a careful consideration of the whole of the evidence, the tribunal was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Butters made the offending comment.
“It 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. We also consider that to be implausible.
“It is implausible that Mr Foot misheard the words “Surely that’s not a free kick” as “How much are they paying you?” None 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, the two men were standing close to one another and Mr Foot responded without hesitation in giving a 50-metre penalty and then shortly thereafter telling Mr Butters that he was being reported.
“We reject Mr Butters evidence that he only made one comment about the free kick against player Sweet (“Surely that’s not a free kick” ) and that his only comment was made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to move the ball on. The 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.”
The panel found Butters had made more than one comment to Foot, and it was understandable that Wines, who had declared that he was “100 per cent” certain Butters had not made the offending comment, had not heard this.
“It is not surprising that Mr Wines did not hear the offending comment. Mr Foot’s unchallenged evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment at a lower volume than his earlier comments,” the panel said.
“Mr Wines was at least 1.5 metres away from Mr Butters. The distance and positioning made it difficult for Mr Butters himself to hear what Mr Wines was saying to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision.”
The panel said Butters’ long history of sanctions was also “relevant” in its finding.
“Mr Butters did not use expletives and while the offending comment was insulting and should not have been made, it can be described as a sledge made among other dissenting comments by players to Mr Foot which might have separately warranted a 50-metre penalty,” the panel said.
“However, it is also relevant that this is far from the first time that Mr Butters has committed a reportable offence during his career. He has committed well over a dozen reportable offences over the last eight seasons.”
Butters has now been sanctioned 22 times through his career, the fines totalling $51,625.
Before the findings were released on Wednesday, Koch said it was all but certain the Power would appeal the decision. A Power spokesman later said the club would meet with its legal team on Wednesday night to determine their next steps.
“Zak is a competitor, but he’s one of the nicest blokes you could ever meet. And you know he’s incredibly angry with the outcome because, you know, quite rightly, he believes that he’s been dubbed a liar in this,” Koch said.
“And, you know, the bloke has enormous pride and integrity of his values… I can tell you, his family, his mum and dad, equally are as devastated and angry.
“We put up a witness, the league’s best and fairest, a former Brownlow Medal winner, but the decision took none of that into account, and seemed to focus on semantics.”
AFL Umpires Association chief executive Rob Kerr said Foot had handled the issue appropriately.
“In the case of the Zak Butters report, Nick Foot is adamant that his integrity was questioned, and he acted appropriately by reporting the incident,” Kerr said.
“Nick Foot was subject to multiple pointed criticisms of his character when he did not engage with Zak Butters at the conclusion of the game. Those criticisms were made without an understanding that an umpire is prohibited by the Laws of the Game from speaking to a player they have reported.”
Kerr said Foot had not wavered in his evidence, and had since been subjected to malicious online trolling.
“While debate about the decision continues, Nick Foot has never wavered from his account. His response to what he perceived was said was entirely consistent with the expectations placed on umpires charged with protecting the game’s integrity, and he has behaved appropriately through each step of this process at the cost of significant personal discomfort, particularly with some of the online vitriol,” Kerr said.
That the release of the tribunal’s written findings were delayed from Tuesday evening’s hearing, which Enbom said had to end by 5.45pm, prompted former Collingwood president Eddie McGuire to declare the drawnout process was not good enough.
Johnson also briefly left the virtual hearing to transfer to his phone and was in a car as the hearing came to an end. Concern was expressed that Johnson had dropped out of the video link, but the former Essendon player assured the hearing he had not missed any of the evidence.
However, the AFL did speak privately to Johnson on Wednesday about his movements during the meeting, with the tribunal panelist admitting it was not a good look.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Jon Pierik is a sports journalist at The Age. He covers AFL and has won awards for his cricket and basketball writing.Connect via X or email.
