The AFL Umpires' Association has mounted a spirited defence of Nick Foot as controversy surrounding his exchange with Port Adelaide star Zak Butters rages.
Butters was fined $1500 after the AFL tribunal took Foot's side in a "he said/he said" hearing after an abusive language charge.
AFLUA chief executive Rob Kerr said Foot had the "full support" of the umpires' union.
"Integrity is a core attribute that an official must demonstrate to properly perform their role. They are expected to act with total fairness and without any hint of bias," Kerr said.
"In the case of the Zak Butters report, Nick Foot is adamant that his integrity was questioned and he acted appropriately by reporting the incident.
"When an umpire's integrity is questioned or they are accused of manipulating an outcome, their authority to perform the role of the umpire is significantly diminished. For this reason, officials react strongly to any such suggestion and they are within their rights to take action. Not doing so invites other competitors to challenge the impartiality with which the umpire performs their duties."
Kerr was particularly strong in his criticism of those who slammed Foot for refusing to talk to Butters after the match on Sunday night.
"Nick Foot was subject to multiple pointed criticisms of his character when he did not engage with Zak Butters at the conclusion of the game. 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," Kerr said.
"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. This standard is even more vital in community football, where allowing post-siren confrontations between emotional players and officials can escalate into dangerous situations, particularly when spectators have access to the field of play.
"While the tribunal hearing has invited a great deal of further commentary, it should not be overlooked that the matter was determined by an impartial tribunal, led by an experienced Kings Counsel. Tribunal members are intelligent and integrous people.
"The members heard all of the evidence and reached their decision based on that evidence.
"While debate about the decision continues, Nick Foot has never wavered from his account. His response to what he perceived was said was entirely consistent with the expectations placed on umpires charged with protecting the game's integrity, and he has behaved appropriately through each step of this process at the cost of significant personal discomfort, particularly with some of the online vitriol."
