Right,so the nub of it is,Butters said it,denied it,Tribunal/MRP effectively said,he Lied about it!
Is that it?
Made a rod for his back,when he could have whipped round and said,“Any more of that rubbish and I’ll ping you agin!”
Any player dissent would have stopped then.
Of course,there’s plenty of helpfull advice from the crowd and we all know the Umps don’t Umpire Crowd dissent,don’t we?
I don’t know who’s telling the truth to be fair, but Butters has not helped himself by changing what he said and also getting Wines up there who says, I can’t remember exactly but it wasn’t what the umpire said.
Its up to Port to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not the other way around. No different to when we get charged by the cops. Its he said she said and I need to prove beyond a reasoable doubt I didn’t do it.
When you roll in with I’m not sure what I said but it wasn’t that …. your defence is piss weak.
Has the AFL actually outlined the tribunal ruling that was delayed last night?
AFL Tribunal Reasons: In the matter of Zak Butters of the Port Adelaide Football Club
Its very detailed reading
THE AFL Tribunal has determined it is “implausible” that umpire Nick Foot would have ‘invented’ the comment that has seen Port Adelaide star Zak Butters fined for umpire abuse.
On Tuesday, Butters was convicted of using abusive and insulting language towards an umpire and fined $1500, with the Tribunal pointing to the midfielder’s long history of sanctions as “relevant” to its findings.
“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 Tribunal said in a statement of its reasoning on Wednesday.
“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.”
With Tuesday’s verdict, Butters has now been sanctioned 22 times across his career with a fines total of $51,625.
The Tribunal pointed to the fact that Foot said Butters made two comments towards him, while Butters claimed he only made one, as a determining factor in its decision on Tuesday night.
“We reject Mr Butters evidence that he only made one comment … (it) is contrary to the evidence of Mr Foot,” the Tribunal said. "Consistent with Mr Foot’s evidence, Mr (Ollie) 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.
"It is unlikely that Mr Butters remained silent about the umpiring decision until just before the free kick was taken.
"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.
“Mr Foot’s unchallenged evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment at a lower volume than his earlier comments.”
The Tribunal found it “implausible” that umpire Foot would have invented the offending comment, “how much are they paying you?”.
“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,” the Tribunal said.
Zak Butters delivers a raw post-match response after being reported for dissent, insisting he said nothing inappropriate and will ‘follow it up’
“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.”
Port Adelaide will now determine if it will appeal the finding.
Power chairman David Koch indicated earlier on Wednesday, before the Tribunal released its findings, that the club would appeal.
“Zak is a competitor but he’s one of the nicest blokes you could ever meet,” Koch said on 5AA on Wednesday.
"He’s incredibly angry with the outcome. He quite rightly believes he’s been dubbed a liar in all this.
“The bloke has enormous pride and integrity of his values.”
Earlier on Wednesday, 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, 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.”
The AFL Umpires Association has thrown their support behind Foot, claiming the fact he did not engage with Butters after the match - as umpires are directed not to do - led to “multiple pointed criticisms of his character”.
“Foot was subject to multiple pointed criticisms of his character when he did not engage with Zak Butters at the conclusion of the game,” AFL Umpires Association CEO, Rob Kerr, said is a statement.
"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. Nick Foot’s actions weren’t due to any heightened sensitivity, or a lack of courtesy; they were a commitment to due process as allowing reported players to approach an official invites undue influence and pressure.
“Maintaining this ‘no-talk’ boundary is a protective measure — not a personal slight — ensuring the process remains impartial.”
More to come …
On a different level,there’s one Umpire that I believe gets up the Goat of Perth Supoorters and not just 1 of us.
As frustrating as it might be for players,I imagine there would be instructions on how to handle that frustration and keep a civil tongue,whilst free advice from the Crowd is flying everywhere,…
Thankfully from my angle and position,as occasional it is,steam might be coming out of my ears,I have to keep focused quickly on what happens next.
I wait until after the game,for liberal analysis from fellow Dees on Umpiring performance,…
I try and behave meself after a Home Game.Well,when I need to knock on a certain door,…
AFL “explanation”…. pure WORD SALAD.
Spin city as per normal.
Best EVER oxy moron….. AFL and Integrity unit in the same breath
Viper,…your thoughts?
You open your gob onfield to any umpire in any grade in any given year you ever played football
you cop rough edges and no quarter
the biggest and only onfield rule was to keep your trap shut and play the football
or risk unwanted scrutiny from the maggot
now that there are up to four of them
well I’m staggered any player would jeopardise his mates’ fortunes by lip servicing the four of them
but then again any idiot with a bowl babboon haircut deserves his penalty
on what bit? The stuff from the lawyers? Not much to say … it’s what I said where the defence from Butters has as many holes as my sieve last night so he got burnt. Interesting though is, if they thought it was legit, why only a $1500 fine when you’re effectively calling him a cheat? Surely its towards $10K or he’s innocent??
I wondered about the fine Viper - basically they are saying he called the ump integrity into question yet fined him $1500.00 however stated that he has had multiple sanctions?
I was also curious about the comments on TV last night relating to tribunal member Jason Johnson and the fact he wasn’t in attendance but was dialled in from his car? That in itself seems strange
2 Likes
Exactly, if the AFL believe the umpires account that Butters did call him a cheat then it has to be more than a $1500 fine…at community level its a minimum of 2 weeks if the player is offered a set penalty for abusive language towards an umpire or its off to the tribunal for a bigger penalty.
Ultimately its one persons word against another and if there’s a reasonable doubt that what the umpire heard and what was said by Butters could be different then you’d have to side with the player. There’s every chance with a packed Adelaide Oval and a free kick paid against PA that it may have been misheard.
Not surprised PA have appealed the decision and I reckon the lawyers will be questioning the procedural fairness of tribunal given that a tribunal member was driving his car listening to proceedings.
With the amount of money the AFL rakes in surely they need to be far more professional with how the tribunal operates and also umpires not being full time and needing other employment is ridiculous.
1 Like
Disgrace if you ask me
I can tell you from experience that its 2 weeks for something like that in PFL. Can’t say I have ever heard of a WAFL umpire being called a cheat.
By a player,No.
But that word does fly around amongst the crowd.
Ive never seen such a storm in a teacup. What a waste of time and resources. This should have been resolved by mediation rather than the tribunal. Of course the root issue here is whether an Umpire should be working for a betting agency
2 Likes
If there is idiotic people in the crowd who think an umpire is actually cheating then good for them. I have no doubt we get people along like that clown a couple years ago but few and far between.
I’d like to see a few in the crowd calling an umpire a cheat actually get out there and have a go. It’s farken hard work and to put up with the shit by people who think they are entitled to do it is ridiculous. I bet they don’t abuse their players for turning a footy over and they make 80 turnovers a game.
1 Like
I certainly agree on that last bit.
We do tend to overlook the turnovers after the event.Well,the outrageously Biased fans anyway.
Refresh my memory on that fan you were talking about,…unless it’s close to home,… 
There was a field umpire in the AFL a few years found to be involved in match fixing. I was hinting at him not a fan. 99% of umpires are not cheats. Some may be completely shit but doesn’t make them a cheat.
edit: got that wrong … he was giving out brownlow info.
1 Like