‘Dubbed a liar’: Family seething over Zak Butters’ umpire abuse fine

Port Adelaide chairman David Koch has revealed Zak Butters and his family are seething that the Power star has effectively been “dubbed a liar” after he was found guilty of umpire abuse, with the club all but certain to appeal the decision.

Butters was found guilty of umpire abuse after the AFL tribunal accepted the evidence of field umpire Nick Foot that the Power midfielder questioned his integrity.

In a major case featuring conflicting evidence between Foot and Power players Butters and Ollie Wines, Butters was fined $1500 after being found guilty of abusive or insulting language towards an official.

The tribunal’s written findings have not been publicly released, having been delayed from Tuesday evening’s hearing which had to end by 5.45pm, prompting former Collingwood president Eddie McGuire to declare the drawnout process was not good enough. Koch said the club almost certainly would lodge an appeal.

“So we will get their findings and work out whether to appeal. I think it’s pretty certain we will,” Koch told 5AA on Wednesday.

Koch’s comments came as the AFL Players Association took aim at the tribunal for its handling of the Butters case, and also at how the AFL disciplinary tribunal handled the Lance Collard matter, with the St Kilda player given a nine-week suspension for a homophobic slur.

In the Butters’ case, 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 in Sunday night’s clash against St Kilda at Adelaide Oval.

Butters insisted at the hearing he had never asked that question, but Foot was adamant Butters had. Wines, Butters’ teammate and a Brownlow medallist, also provided evidence, and was “100 per cent confident” Butters had not made that statement.

Koch said Butters and his family were devastated.

“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.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, Port Adelaide’s legal representative warned of serious repercussions should Butters be found guilty.

“If the tribunal was to accept our argument – that umpire Foot did not hear correctly what was said, in his mind he has thought an allegation was being made against him, that he is being paid effectively on behalf of St Kilda,” Kerry Robertson-Clark said in her closing submissions.

“But it is a very serious finding, in my submission, to say that both those respective players [Butters and Wines] have come to this tribunal and lied about what was said.”

The AFLPA declared it was concerning the accounts given by Butters and Collard in their separate hearings were not believed.

AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher said the Butters’ incident should never have made it to a tribunal hearing, and it is “deeply concerning” that the testimony of the Power vice captain and Wines were not believed.

“We are deeply disappointed by last night’s tribunal outcome for Port Adelaide’s Zak Butters,” Gallagher said.

“A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the tribunal. The tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak’s version of events, including testimony of Zak’s teammate Ollie Wines, nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning.

“We’ve offered our full support to Zak and Port Adelaide in exploring their options to appeal.”

Tribunal chair Renee Enbom, KC, explained early in Tuesday’s hearing that she and her fellow panellists – former AFL players Jason Johnson and Darren Gaspar – had until 5.45pm to reach their verdict. This meant the written reasons were later delayed.

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.

Koch took a diplomatic stance when asked if the Power had been shown enough respect in the hearing, pointing out the tribunal panellists are volunteers. However, he suggested it was time to modernise the panel.

“At the moment, I think that maybe will be a consequence down the track, that it’s a really important part of our game, and maybe that needs to be held at a level of professionalism, in terms of … that [tribunal] commitment should be rewarded like other executives and other members and officials of the AFL,” he said.

On Nine’s Footy Classified (Nine is the owner of this masthead), it was reported that the tribunal had a deadline for Tuesday’s hearing because Enbom had a pre-existing commitment.

McGuire said the hearing should have been dealt with in one hit, either by using a different KC as chair or holding the hearing in full on Wednesday. “This is a massive case. This is a case that needed to be finalised,” he said.

McGuire said the case also highlighted the need for the AFL to move towards making its umpires full-time employees.

The AFL disciplinary tribunal gave Collard a nine-week suspension after finding him guilty of using a homophobic slur in a VFL match against Frankston towards Darby Hipwell.

At the tribunal on Tuesday, Hipwell was adamant that he heard the 21-year-old call him a “f—ing f—-t”. Hipwell’s teammate Bailey Lambert backed this. However Collard maintained his innocence, claiming he said “maggot”.

Gallagher questioned why the tribunal did not accept Collard’s testimony that he had not used a homophobic slur.

“Lance has maintained his innocence, and this has been consistent throughout. We’re disappointed the tribunal did not accept that evidence,” he said.

The Saints have five days to lodge an appeal.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.