Why Port Adelaide chairman David Koch says the Power will appeal Zak Butters’ fine for abusing umpire Nick Foot
Updated ,first published
The AFL tribunal has argued that it was unreasonable for on-field umpire Nick Foot not to claim he was abused as the divide between players and referees widened further in the wake of the Zak Butters controversy.
The league released its written findings on Wednesday; Butters was fined $1,500 for allegedly using abusive or insulting language towards an official during Sunday’s clash between the Power and St Kilda.
His conviction outraged Butters and his family; Power chairman David Koch declared that Butters had effectively been “called a liar.”
The case featured conflicting evidence from Foot, Butters and another Power star, Ollie Wines. Experienced referee Foot said the Power player asked “How much do they pay you?” He claimed he heard him say. Before paying the 50 meter penalty and reporting Butters.
The Power midfielder claimed he had only made one comment to Foot and that was not the alleged underlying statement.
In the ruling, delivered by presiding judge Renee Enbom, KC, and fellow panellists, former players Jason Johnson and Darren Gaspar, the panel said: “On careful consideration of all the evidence, the tribunal is satisfied to the required standard that Mr Butters made the offensive comment.
“It is unbelievable that Mr Foot could have made up this offensive comment and he was not told that he had done so. We were told that he had many distractions and misheard what Mr Butters was saying. We also think it is implausible.”
“It is incredible that Mr Foot misheard these words. “Of course this is not a free kick” like “How much do they pay you?” None of the words Mr. Butters says are the words Mr. Foot thinks he heard. Mr Foot was sure of what he had heard, the two men were standing close together and Mr Foot responded without hesitation with a 50 meter penalty and shortly afterwards told Mr Butters that he had been reported.
“We reject Mr Butters’ evidence that he made only one comment regarding the free kick against the Sweet player (“Of course this is not a free kick” ) and said his only comment was made after Mr Foot had blown his whistle to advance the ball. “The evidence that he made only one comment is contrary to Mr Foot’s evidence that Mr Butters made more than one comment.”
The panel found that Butters had made multiple comments to Foot, and it was understandable that Wines, who stated that he was “100 percent” sure Butters had not made the offending comment, did not hear this.
“It is not surprising that Mr Wines did not hear the offending comment. Mr Foot’s undisputed evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment in a lower voice than his previous comments,” the panel said.
“Mr. Wines was at least 1.5 meters away from Mr. Butters. The distance and location made it difficult for Mr. Butters to hear what Mr. Wines said to Mr. Foot about the referee’s decision.”
The panel said Butters’ long sanctions history was also “relevant” to the finding.
“Mr Butters did not use profanity and, although the offending comment was derogatory and should not have been made, it could be described as a sledging which, along with other dissenting comments made by the players towards Mr Foot, could also attract a 50m penalty,” the panel said.
“However, it is also important that this is not the first time Mr. Butters has committed a reportable offense in his career. He has committed more than a dozen reportable offenses over the last eight seasons.”
Butters was sanctioned 22 times during his career, totaling $51,625.
Before the findings were released Wednesday, Koch said it was almost certain Power would appeal the decision. A Power spokesman later said the club would meet with its legal team on Wednesday night to determine its next steps.
“Zak is a competitor, but he’s one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet. And you know he’s incredibly angry about the outcome because, you know, he rightfully believes he’s been called a liar about this,” Koch said.
“And you know, this man has great pride and integrity in his own values… I can tell you that his family, his mother and father, are just as devastated and angry.
“We put forward a witness who is the league’s best and fairest, a former Brownlow Medalist, but none of this was taken into account in the decision and seemed to focus on semantics.”
AFL Referees Association chief executive Rob Kerr said Foot had dealt with the matter appropriately.
“Nick Foot is adamant that his integrity was questioned regarding Zak Butters’ report and he acted appropriately in reporting the incident,” Kerr said.
“Nick Foot was subjected to a number of harsh criticisms of his character for not engaging with Zak Butters at the end of the game. These criticisms were made without understanding that he was prohibited under the Laws of the Game from speaking to a player reported by the referee.”
Kerr said Foot did not waver in his evidence and has since been subjected to malicious online trolling.
“While controversy surrounding the decision has continued, Nick Foot has never backed down from his statement. His response to what he perceived was entirely consistent with the expectations placed on referees charged with protecting the integrity of the game, and he acted appropriately at every step of that process, particularly at the cost of significant personal inconvenience due to some of the online criticism,” Kerr said.
The release of the tribunal’s written findings was delayed after a Tuesday evening hearing, which Enbom said should have finished at 5.45pm, prompting former Collingwood chairman Eddie McGuire to declare the extension process was not good enough.
Johnson also briefly left the virtual hearing to go to his phone and was in the car when the hearing ended. Concerns were raised that Johnson had abandoned the video link, but the former Essendon player assured the hearing he had not missed any evidence.
But the AFL spoke to Johnson privately on Wednesday about his actions during the meeting and the tribunal accepted 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 reporter for The Age. He covers the AFL and has won awards for his cricket and basketball writing.Connect with: X or email.
