Zak Butters was charged with the reportable offence of using abusive, insulting or obscene language towards or in relation to an umpire during last Sunday’s match between Port Adelaide and St Kilda contrary to law 22.2.2 of the Laws of Australian Football.

Mr Butters pleaded not guilty.

In accordance with AFL Regulation 19.8, we provide these reasons for upholding the charge.

In submissions, Mr Butters’ counsel sensibly accepted that if the Tribunal were to find that Mr Butters spoke the words alleged to umpire Nicholas Foot, the conduct constituted insulting language towards or in relation to an umpire within the meaning of law 22.2.2. The words alleged were plainly insulting within the meaning of law 22.2.2.

Accordingly, the only issue in dispute was whether Mr Butters spoke the alleged words to umpire Foot.

The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he did so.

Mr Foot, an experienced AFL umpire who has umpired over 250 games, gave evidence of the circumstances leading up to the relevant comment. He told the Tribunal that he awarded a free kick against Mr Butters’ teammate, Mr Sweet, and that he told Mr Sweet the reason for the free kick. After doing so, Mr Foot moved back about 10 metres to provide space for the free kick to be taken by the St Kilda player. Mr Foot then had Mr Butters standing slightly behind him and to his left. They were only about 1 metre apart. Mr Foot also had Mr Butters’ teammate Oliver Wines standing to his right. He was about 1.5 metres away. Mr Foot gave evidence that both Mr Butters and Mr Wines were making comments to him about the free kick. He said it was possible that one of the things Mr Butters said was “surely that’s not a free kick”. He said that it was after he had blown his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to commence his kick that Mr Butters then made an additional comment, at a lower volume than his earlier comments, and that he said “how much are they paying you?” (offending comment). Mr Foot understood Mr Butters to be suggesting that the opposing team, St Kilda, were paying him and that his integrity was thereby being questioned. In response to the comment, Mr Foot blew his whistle and awarded a 50-metre penalty against Mr Butters. A short time later he also told Mr Butters that he was reporting him.

Mr Foot told the Tribunal that he heard the offending comment clearly. He said that he was 100 percent adamant that he heard it and that it came from Mr Butters. Mr Foot explained that the offending comment came from his left side where Mr Butters was standing and that his earpiece was in his right ear.

Mr Foot’s evidence is not inconsistent with the vision of the events.

The vision shows player Sweet questioning the free kick against him and Mr Foot can be heard explaining on more than one occasion the reason for the free kick. The vision also seems to capture Mr Butters’ immediate negative reaction to the awarding of the free kick (vision at 3:56). Mr Butters also accepted under cross-examination that when the free kick was awarded, he was very frustrated with the decision.

The vision captures Mr Foot, Mr Butters and Mr Wines later standing in the positions described by Mr Foot. Mr Butters can be seen standing close to Mr Foot’s left side and Mr Wines standing further away to Mr Foot’s right side immediately before the 50-metre penalty was given.

Moving now to the evidence of Mr Butters, he agreed that he was standing roughly in the location described by Mr Foot at the time the 50-metre penalty was given. He denied saying the offending comment. He was adamant he did not say it. His evidence was that he only remonstrated about the free kick on one occasion and that he said, “Surely that’s not a free kick”. He told the Tribunal that he made that comment after Mr Foot had blown his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move the ball on. He said that he did not remonstrate about the free kick at all before that time. Mr Butters said that Mr Wines had also remonstrated the free kick. He said that Mr Wines’ comments were of a similar kind to his own and that Mr Wines made them to Mr Foot both before and after Mr Foot had blown the whistle to move the ball on. However, he said that he did not hear exactly what Mr Wines had said to Mr Foot because Mr Foot was standing between them and the crowd was loud.

Mr Butters gave evidence that he told Mr Wines and other team mates straight afterwards what he had said to Mr Foot.

Mr Wines also gave evidence about the incident. He agreed with Mr Foot’s description of where the three men were standing. He told the Tribunal that Mr Butters and himself were commenting to Mr Foot about the free kick against player Sweet. Mr Wines recalled saying a few times words to the effect “Do you honestly think that is a free kick?”. He could not be sure as to exactly what Mr Butters had said or how many times he heard Mr Butters comment on the decision. However, Mr Wines’ evidence was that he heard Mr Butters comment on the free kick more than once. As to the words used by Mr Butters, Mr Wines’ best recollection was that he heard words to the effect of “how is that a free kick?”. Mr Wines said he was sure that he did not hear Mr Butters say the offending comment. He could not recall whether the comments he heard Mr Butters make were made before or after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move the ball on. Mr Wines also could not recall whether his own comments were made before or after that whistle. Lastly, Mr Wines gave evidence that Mr Butters did not tell him what he recalled saying to Mr Foot. That evidence was contrary to the evidence of Mr Butters who said that he told Mr Wines what he had said to Mr Foot.

The final witness was Ben Rutten of the Port Adelaide Football Club. He said that after the 50-metre penalty was given, Mr Butters came off the ground and told him that the umpiring was disgusting. He said that he had been reported. He told Mr Rutten that he had said to the umpire, “Surely that’s not a free kick”.

On a careful consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Butters made the offending comment.

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. 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.

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. 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. The vision and the effect of the evidence of Mr Foot and Mr Wines was that there was much dissent in relation to Mr Foot’s umpiring decision. It started with Mr Sweet and was continued by Mr Butters and Mr Wines. The crowd also booed the decision. In all these circumstances, 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. 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 earlier comments. Mr Wines was at least 1.5 metres away from Mr Butters. The distance and positioning made it difficult for Mr Butters himself to hear what Mr Wines was saying to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision.

While it was submitted by Mr Butters’ counsel that his reaction to the 50-metre penalty, as captured by the vision, is consistent with him having not made the offending comment, we find that it is also consistent with him believing that the offending comment did not warrant a 50-metre penalty in the circumstances. He had not used any profanities, and it was one of many dissenting comments made by several players.

We do not find it surprising or unusual that Mr Foot’s microphone did not capture the comments made by Mr Butters or Mr Wines. It is apparent from the vision that the microphone did not capture all that was said by players during the events. There are many possible reasons for that, including the positioning of players to the microphone.

Finally, and for completeness, we do not consider the variation in Mr Butters’ accounts of what he said was his only comment to be of any significance. He told the media that he had said something different to what he told Mr Rutten and the Tribunal he had said. The difference was minor. The variation was of no assistance in determining whether Mr Butters had made the additional offending comment.

As to sanction, both the AFL and Mr Butters submitted that a fine of $1,500 was appropriate. The Tribunal accepts that such a fine is within the appropriate range but only just within the low end of the range. 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. 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.

Dated: 15 April 2026

Renee Enbom KC

Darren Gaspar

Jason Johnson