Port Adelaide has confirmed it will appeal the decision to fine Zak Butters for umpire abuse.
"The club believes strongly in Butters' account of events and will formally contest the verdict," a club statement read in part.
The AFL will confirm details of the appeal in due course.
It follows the AFL tribunal confirming the reasons for Zak Butters' guilty verdict for umpire abuse, with “minor” inconsistencies in his story not attributed to the decision.
More telling were the inconsistences between evidence provided by Butters and his teammate Ollie Wines.
Much was spoken about the slightly different wording Butters provided when recounting the event in an on-field interview with Xander McGuire, when discussing the incident with Port Adelaide staffer Ben Rutten and at the AFL tribunal.
“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,” the statement read in part.
“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.”
The tribunal believed it was unlikely that Butters' only comment about the free kick came just before it was taken given his frustration with the decision.
It also highlighted the consistency between the vision and Foot's statement, with inconsistencies between Butters' and Wines' version of events also contributing to the decision.
"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 statement read.
"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."
Despite several factors being put to Foot which may have distracted him from hearing accurately, the tribunal was satisfied that his recollection was correct.
“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,” the statement read.
“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 50m penalty and then shortly thereafter telling Mr Butters that he was being reported."
Butters will not be part of the appeal process to enable him to prepare for the club's clash with Hawthorn.
While I have no allegiance to the filth….. in fact I lean much the other way….. this is a clear case of injustice.
There is no evidence that Butters uttered that phrase, none, there is only an umpire who, it must be said, was already “controversial” given the he works for a betting firm (OBVIOUS “conflict of interest”) who insists the phrase was said.
No audio, no corroborating witness.
The player has a witness – there is a corroborating evidence (admittedly from an “interested party”) that the phrase was not said.
… as to the phrase Butters has claimed he actually said – it revolves around the “validity” of the “free kick” said umpire had just given.
Therefore if that’s the intent of the phrase then the version “are you paying that” or similar is one that can be “plausibly” misheard by an umpire (who already has his impartiality under question – and is concerned by that).
In a fair hearing the worst scenario for the player is that the case against him is unsubstantiated and cannot be considered.
port have every right to appeal this “decision” and if needed take it to court.
While the courts do give credence to sports “tribunals” in the admin of their own rules – such as violation of basic issues would see the AFL sanctioned to whatever level the court sees fit.