Port Adelaide have announced they will appeal the AFL tribunal’s decision to find Zak Butters guilty of umpire abuse.
Butters was fined $1500 on Wednesday afternoon, following Tuesday night’s marathon hearing, for abuse towards AFL umpire Nick Foot during the Power’s loss to St Kilda last Sunday night.
At the tribunal, Butters gave evidence that he made only one comment to Foot, and that the comment was: “Surely that’s not a free kick”.
Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today
Foot’s evidence refuted that claim, saying he was “100 per cent adamant” that Butters had said, “How much are they paying you?”.
The AFL tribunal explained on Wednesday that, on the balance of probabilities, it was “satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Butters made the offending comment”.
Hours later, the Power confirmed they would fight the charge.
“Port Adelaide Football Club will appeal the AFL tribunal’s decision to find Zak Butters guilty of using abusive and insulting language towards an umpire during Sunday’s match against St Kilda,” Port Adelaide said in a statement.
“The tribunal last night upheld the charge, resulting in a $1500 fine. The club believes strongly in Butters’ account of events and will formally contest the verdict.
“The AFL will confirm the date and time of the appeal hearing in due course.”
Working against Butters’ case was that teammate Ollie Wines, who himself was remonstrating with the umpire over the decision on Saturday night, gave evidence that Butters made more than one comment.
Wines’s evidence was inconsistent with that of Butters, but appears consistent with the vision of the incident.
“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 tribunal explained.
“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.
“It was also not Mr Wines’ evidence that he only heard Mr Butters comment to Mr Foot on one occasion. Consistent with Mr Foot’s evidence, Mr Wines said that he heard Mr Butters comment on the free kick more than once.
“We also accept the AFL’s submission that it would be peculiar for Mr Butters to make his only comment about the umpiring decision just before the St Kilda player took his free kick. This is because Mr Butters appears in the vision to be unhappy with the umpiring decision as soon as it was made, he told the Tribunal he was very frustrated with the decision and he stood close to Mr Foot for some time including while Mr Wines was himself complaining about the decision.
“We find that Mr Butters made more than one comment to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision and that his final comment, made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move on with his free kick, was the offending comment.
“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 eartier comments.”
AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher said the organisation was “deeply disappointed” by the tribunal outcome.
“A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the tribunal,” Gallagher said in a statement.
“The tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak’s version of events …nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning.”
AFL Umpires Association chief executive Rob Kerr defended Foot.
“Nick Foot has never wavered from his account,” Kerr said in a statement.
“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.”
– With AAP
