Butters found guilty of abusing umpire as Port claims ‘glaring hole in the evidence’

Thanks for your company this afternoon and tonight. We will have more for you on this story in the days ahead, including the Tribunal’s justification when it arrives tomorrow.

Until next time, goodnight.

Butters has given a short statement outside Port Adelaide HQ.

“I’m clearly disappointed with the result tonight. I stand by knowing what I said and what I didn’t say. Especially what I didn’t say. I’d like to thank the club for their support. Thank you.”

Can’t imagine that’s the last we hear from Port on this matter in the days ahead.

We were expecting to hear from Port Adelaide at some point tonight, and given the club’s earlier statements around the matter I can’t imagine it will be taking this decision too lightly.

Again though, Port won’t receive any word as to why the Tribunal made its decision until tomorrow so it will be difficult for it to make a conclusive statement or decision.

In what effectively came down to a “he said, he said” battle, the Tribunal and AFL have firmly sided with the umpires, taking Nick Foot’s word over that of Zak Butters and Ollie Wines. What that means going forward is certainly worthy of speculation.

We don’t know, and we won’t know until tomorrow.

The Tribunal set a 5.45pm deadline for this hearing and as a result said it simply did not have time to go into its reasonings tonight.

Butters has been fined $1,500.

The Tribunal says it will prepare its reasonings and send them to the parties in question tomorrow morning.

And that’s that.

Decision incoming.

I was just saying that to the fellas in the office.

Anyway, Tribunal is still deliberating. The wait goes on.

We’ve had lots of questions about what went on here. There hasn’t really been an explanation for why there is no conclusive audio from this incident.

The umpire’s microphones aren’t generally meant to be used to pick up stray comments from players like this though, like a police bodycam. It’s more for umpire communication and assessment. But in saying that, it very often does clearly pick up audio from conversations with players, as it did with Foot’s conversation with Jordon Sweet moments before the Butters incident.

Apparently they have until 5.45 to reach and deliver a verdict, and if I heard correctly, then may not offer the full reasons for their decision until tomorrow? We’ll have to wait and see on that one.

Either way, we’ll have a decision soon.

The AFL says the phrase “clearly satisfied” does not appear in the rules. Apparently regulation 19.4 says the Tribunal can make the final decision, but does not reference to any language beyond that.

Port Adelaide says it took “clearly satisfied” from regulation 6.1 and accepts the AFL’s point regarding regulation 19.4.

So there you go.

The AFL also points to the strength of Foot’s testimony and the implication that a finding in Butters’ favour would have as to the umpire’s integrity.

The Tribunal has come back with a response to some of Port Adelaide’s claims.

“It is not right that the Tribunal would have to find that Wines was giving untruthful evidence in order for the charge to be upheld … as it could be that Wines did not hear the comment.”

And the Port Adelaide response:

“That is true in the case of Wines, but is not true in the case of Butters who is adamant he did not say those words. If there was to be a finding in favour of the AFL, the finding would have to be that Butters has lied.”

And now one of the Tribunal members has lost connection so the whole thing is on hold for the time being.

The club is speaking about the lack of umpire mic recording of the moment.

“Obviously if we had that we may not be here, because there would be some objective independent evidence. It is therefore a question of who has the correct recollection.

(The AFL) is inviting the Tribunal to find that both Butters and Wines have been untruthful. If the Tribunal was to accept our finding, it’s that umpire Foot did not hear correctly what was said.

“The other thing is, Butters was not to know there would be no audio recording. If fact we all assumed the audio would be able to be found. It would be brave an unusual for him to be telling either Rutten or a journalist what he said if he was thinking the audio would come out and he would be proven incorrect.”

Port Adelaide says the AFL should find Butters said at least one, but maybe both of the “surely that’s not a free kick”/”how is that a free kick?” double-header, but certainly not “how much are they paying you?”.

Port Adelaide says that the evidence presented does not allow the Tribunal to be “clearly satisfied” the remarks were made as alleged.

Port is now trying to get to the bottom of this timeline confusion. Port says the Tribunal should be “cautious in attributing to Mr Wines that statements were made before and after the whistle” due to the confusion.

“We reject the decision that the immediate paying of a 50m penalty allows the Tribunal to draw any conclusion that the alleged statements were made. It just suggests Foot thought something offensive was said.

“Whether it was the case that Butters made one comment or two – and Wines said in his evidence that Butters made “one or two sentences” – but putting together the evidence from both players, what was said to the journalist after the game, and what was said to Ben Rutten the words said were ‘surely that’s not a free kick’ and/or ‘how is that a free kick?’.

“Perhaps Butters said both of these things. But neither is anywhere close to the alleged words in the charge.”

Upon prompting, the AFL is saying that Butters believes he said only one thing and that it was said in between the “move-along whistle” and the “50m penalty” whistle.

The AFL says Wines, on the other hand, believes multiple things were said by both parties both before and after the “move-along whistle”.

Also I have gone ahead and titled these whistles, because the lawyers just keep saying whistle and everyone in this hearing is lost as a result.

The AFL says it is implausible that Butters couldn’t make out what Wines said, and that the umpire’s microphone couldn’t make out what Butters said, but that Wines could hear clearly what Butters said.

The AFL says Foot’s evidence is “clear and truthful” while Port Adelaide’s is “inconsistent’ and “peculiar”.

“The awarding of the 50m penalty was an immediate reaction to it. Mr Butters, on the other hand, has given different versions of the words he has used and may very well have said the words that he is now charged with.”

The AFL concludes by saying that the comment “how much are they paying you?” qualifies as abusive language and should bring about the punishment of a $1,500 fine for Butters. It says its case comes down to the Tribunal accepting the word of Foot, “and we say that it ought”.

The AFL says Foot was certain as to the words that were used, and that his evidence has been consistent all along. It claims that Butters’ evidence has changed from the post-match interview today.

There is still significance confusion about the timing and number of remarks made, and the Tribunal is trying to make sense of the AFL’s case in that regard. The AFL says “it is peculiar” that a complaint made about the free kick wasn’t raised by Butters until the time that Owens was being hurried along to take his kick.

Butters is shaking his head and the Port Adelaide lawyer is smiling as this whistle confusion continues. I’m not sure anyone quite knows what the other is talking about at the moment.

The AFL is asking Rutten about Butters’ Channel Seven interview again, in which the wording of his version is slightly different (“how is that a free kick?” vs “surely that’s not a free kick).

Rutten says he hasn’t spoken to Butters about the interview, but that the words he said he used were “surely that’s not a free kick”.

Nice and quick for Ben Rutten.

Port Adelaide’s GM of football is the latest man to face questioning.

Rutten says he was on the interchange bench and Butters spoke to him as soon as he came to the bench.

“He said that ‘the umpiring out there is disgusting’, so I asked him what’s wrong. He said ‘they’ve reported me and won’t tell me what for’.

“So I asked him what he said, ‘I just said to the umpire surely that’s not a free kick, and he paid a 50m penalty and reported me and won’t give any more information’.

“He came straight to me on the bench and was visibly upset and confused about what had happened.”

Wines is being questioned by the Tribunal now.

“It was along the lines of “how is that a free kick’. Along those lines. We have many conversations with umpires through games, we don’t always agree with decisions. There would have been a few times I would have had that conversation and unfortunately I can’t remember word for word what I said or what he said.

“First of all I had to reassure him he said nothing wrong during the game. Obviously in that quarter he didn’t know what the umpire was alleging, but I could tell him what I heard there was nothing untoward and there was no profanity or anything. We were a but puzzled as to why he had been reported.

“I like to think I have a good moral compass and good integrity. I know what he said, and I don’t have to go to him to get his side of the story because I know what I heard.”

The AFL is questioning Wines now, and again is speaking to the significance of the game and the size of the crowd.

The AFL is trying to establish the precise moments Wines made his comments, and his proximity to Foot and Butters at those times.

Wines says he said “the majority of the words” to Foot between he and Zak.

There is confusion now because the AFL keeps referencing a whistle as a key demarcation, but we have no sound in these highlights. Wines seems to think the AFL is asking if he and Butters made any comments after the 50m penalty was paid, but I think the AFL is referring to the whistle telling Owens to move on and take his kick.

“Immediately prior to the 50m call I recall him saying, along the same lines as me, ‘how is that a free kick’. Nothing that would normally be paid a 50 against.”

Wines does not agree that the crowd was overly loud at that moment as Owens was lining up his kick. Wines says “he can’t be sure what he said, but I can be sure what he didn’t say. I did not hear anything remotely close.”