Port Adelaide has confirmed it will appeal Zak Butters’ $1500 fine for verbally abusing umpire Nick Foot in the case that has captured the AFL world’s attention.
“The club believes strongly in Butters’ account of events and will formally contest the verdict,” they said in a statement.
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 Appeals Board hearing will be held later this week at a time TBC.
On Tuesday, the Tribunal found the stand-in Power captain asked Foot “how much are they paying you?” after a contentious free kick was awarded to St Kilda on Sunday night.
Foot took that as a suggestion he was being paid by the Saints and a shot at his integrity.
Butters told the Tribunal he said “surely that’s not a free kick”, and his case was backed up by nearby teammate Ollie Wines.
Both Wines and Power GM of footy Ben Rutten were questioned by the AFL about the discrepancy between Butters’ recollection of his comment to Seven post-game, which was “how’s that a free kick?”, compared to his current recollection.
But in the end, the decisive factor going against Butters was the discrepancy between how many comments he claimed to have made, and how many comments Foot and Wines said he made – which made his evidence inconsistent.
“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 Tribunal said.
“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.”
They thus found Butters made another comment, which Wines did not hear, which included the offending phrase.
The Tribunal also pointed to Butters’ track record as the most-fined player in AFL history by saying: “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.”
Originally published as Fresh twist in Zak Butters’ umpire abuse saga as Port Adelaide launch appeal
