2 hours ago
1
April 15, 2026 — 12:20pm
Zak Butters is adamant about what he didn’t say to umpire Nick Foot on Sunday night.
Foot is equally resolute that he heard Butters ask, “How much are they paying you?” as they stood near each other waiting for St Kilda’s Mitch Owens to kick for goal after receiving a dubious free kick in a ruck contest.
Anyone who has been in a relationship for any length of time knows that occasionally what someone thinks they said is heard differently by the person the words are directed towards.
Particularly if the exchange occurs in the heat of battle when both parties are wet and cold and tired and something unfortunate has just occurred.
The best relationships then sort the exchange out in a less charged environment a little bit later, particularly if there has been a misunderstanding.
The worst end up spending a lot of time and money sorting out matters after things moved beyond a point of no return.
Mediation should have happened between the field umpire, Foot, and the player, Butters.
It could have happened immediately after the game when Butters approached Foot, but it’s understandable that the umpire wasn’t ready for that discussion then.
It had to happen on Monday or Tuesday before the mobile tribunal occurred.
The AFL was keen for that to happen on Monday but initially had the caveat that Butters was still a chance to be fined even after the meeting took place. That was never going to wash with Port Adelaide, or their legal team.
A second AFL push for mediation on Tuesday failed when the umpire decided he wanted the matter heard at the tribunal instead. There was no point putting that prospect to Butters, who was training, until the umpire had agreed to be involved.
He did not.
A cool head – AFL football supremo Greg Swann – should have had the authority to order a mediation process between player and umpire with, if necessary, an independent arbitrator.
He either did not have that authority or chose not to invoke it, at a time when umpire retention is a major issue and their support from the governing body is, justifiably, a matter of principle.
The fact the matter ended up in a tribunal mid-afternoon on Tuesday, with a panel member forced to be in their car while deliberations took place because their time was so stretched, was a sign of scattered thinking from the league. Jason Johnson, who had to get to an appointment, said he didn’t miss any evidence, but it was a less than ideal situation for him and tribunal chair Renee Enbom, who also faced a deadline.
To be fair, resources were stretched with the Lance Collard judgement occurring simultaneously and many officials arriving home from Gather Round on Monday. It was in no one’s interests to push the matter back to later in the week; the hearing schedule had already changed several times leading into Tuesday.
But someone needed to realise that making judgments in cases where footage forms part of the evidence is not the domain of an Uber driver.
While on dual roles, Foot’s side gig with a betting company doesn’t help perceptions either. The AFL should not have ticked the side gig off when it arose last year. I can’t imagine a chief steward at the races appearing on a show giving tips to help those betting on football.
Of course, a steward is full-time and umpires are not, but there are certain jobs you are better off avoiding if you are an umpire, as harsh as that might seem to Foot who is an outstanding, experienced umpire who officiated the 2024 grand final and had umpired 263 matches at the start of this season.
Then there is the case itself.
It would have been acceptable for the tribunal to find that they could not rule on the issue, and that the 50-metre penalty and subsequent goal was enough of a penalty to the player to satisfy the umpire that their voice had been heard.
It might have convinced Butters to zip it rather than lip it in future encounters with umpires.
But the tribunal lost all feel.
With differing versions of events, no audio of the conversation, no corroborating evidence (apart from Butters’ teammate, Brownlow medallist Ollie Wines) and only one person’s word against another, that common-sense decision could have been reached.
It might have saved the arranged marriage between players and umpires.
Instead, it has created a divide with the players now feeling, rightly or wrongly, like the cards are stacked against them when they appear before the tribunal.
At the same time umpires, completely unfairly, are feeling the weight of public opinion thinking they are precious and reactionary going straight from an incident to the high court, rather than an incident to consultation to, if needed, the high court.
That’s not what the best umpires do, in my experience. They manage a game. They expose idiots in teams and on the sidelines who are carrying on too much and not showing umpires the respect they deserve. They listen and act with judgment according to circumstances.
They can de-escalate, rather than inflate.
This is not what happened here and, unfortunately, confidence in those running the game will suffer because of it.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
