• Download the SEN app to listen live and catch up

The ongoing saga between umpire Nick Foot and Port Adelaide’s Zak Butters may need some time to settle down.

Given the Power’s preparation to appeal the Tribunal’s ruling, the debate between the two parties is far from over, with both Foot and Butters adamant over what was said on field during Port Adelaide’s loss to St Kilda.

With tensions at an all-time high, AFL Umpires Association CEO Rob Kerr has conceded that there will likely be a rest period between Port Adelaide games for Foot.

“I think the reality is, you probably need a little period where things settle,” Kerr told Tom Morris on SEN Mornings.

“Both sides have to be adult about it and accept it at some point.

“If it was a final, and Nick Foot is one of the best umpires going around, are you going to say he can’t umpire a Port Adelaide game? I would have thought not.

“You’ve got to select him on his merits and do the game where appropriate. Maybe, as I said, there is a period where (he doesn’t umpire Power games).

“Obviously the tension is high at the moment, let it all settle.

“I would have thought in some point in time, Nick will be umpiring a Port Adelaide game.”

Port Adelaide have announced that they will appeal the Tribunal's decision to fine Zak Butters over a $1500 sanction was handed down on Tuesday.

The Tribunal found Butters guilty of abusive language towards umpire Nick Foot after a whirlwind trial on Tuesday.

Fox Footy's David Zita has shared the Tribunal's reasoning behind the sanction.

Port Adelaide released this statement on Wednesday afternoon.

Port Adelaide Football Club will appeal the AFL Tribunal's decision to find Zak Butters guilty of using abusive and insulting language towards an umpire during Sunday's match against St Kilda.

The Tribunal last night upheld the charge, resulting in a $1,500 fine. The Club believes strongly in Butters' account of events and will formally contest the verdict.

The AFL Umpires' Association has thrown its support behind Nick Foot in a statement prepared by CEO Rob Kerr.

Kerr says that Foot was subject to multiple pointed criticisms of his character when he did not engage with Zak Butters at the conclusion of the Port Adelaide v St Kilda game.

Read the full statement below:

"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. 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.

"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. 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. 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 King's 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. Nick has the full support of the AFLUA."

Butters was sanctioned by the Tribunal on Tuesday night after a whirlwind 48-hour dispute.

The Power star was reported for using abusive and insulting language towards umpire Foot during his side's loss the Saints at the Adelaide Oval on Sunday night.

Foot argued that Butters asked the umpire, "how much are they paying you?". Butters vehemently denied the allegation, with no on-field evidence present.

After an extensive deliberation, the Tribunal found Butters guilty of the abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards or in relation to an umpire.

The 25-year-old has been fined $1500 as a result.

Butters made this statement following the decision:

"I’m incredibly disappointed with the result tonight. I stand by what I said and what I didn’t say – especially what I didn’t say. I’d like to thank the club for the support."

Earlier this week, Port Adelaide insisted that Butters was “unambiguously adamant” he said nothing untoward.

Port's statement says Butters vehemently denies any wrongdoing and that what was said must have been misheard or misconstrued.

Read the statement below:

The AFL Match Review Officer has advised Zak Butters has been referred to the AFL Tribunal for an incident during Sunday's game against St Kilda.

Butters has been charged with using abusive and insulting language towards an umpire.

The exchange was not picked up on the umpire’s microphone.

The Port Adelaide Football Club will defend in the strongest possible way the allegations made by AFL umpire Nick Foot against Butters.

Port Adelaide believes the words used by Butters were misheard and misconstrued from what was actually said.

Acting club captain Butters is unambiguously adamant on what was said and the club strongly supports him and his position.

Former club captain and Brownlow Medallist Ollie Wines was standing next to Butters and Foot at the time of the exchange and will provide a witness statement in support of Butters.

Port Adelaide is also disappointed that umpire Foot dismissively refused Butters' attempt to seek clarification post-game, as captain of the club.

The Tribunal will sit on Tuesday, April 14 at a time to be confirmed.

“How much are they paying you?”

Butters will now face the tribunal after allegedly abusing umpire Nick Foot during Port Adelaide's loss to St Kilda.

In the third quarter of the match, Power’s acting captain, Butters, was reported by Foot for abusive language, which saw a 50-metre penalty paid against the home side at the Adelaide Oval.

The decision resulted in an easy goal for Mitch Owens, who had drawn a questionable free kick from Jordon Sweet in a ruck contest, just as the Power were getting some even footing in the contest.

Butters said he simply asked Foot why the initial free kick was paid, with it being alleged that the star midfielder said: “How much are they paying you?”

The tribunal hearing will take place on Tuesday

Morris: Butters allegedly questioned Foot's integrity

SEN's Tom Morris is reporting that umpire Nick Foot believes his integrity was questioned by Port Adelaide’s Zak Butters on Sunday night.

Morris suggests that whatever Butters said compelled Foot to penalise the Power star, but there is no audio available of the incident to clear it up.

"While it’s not yet clear precisely what Nick Foot believed Zak Butters said to him, what has become clear is that Butters (allegedly) questioned his integrity as an umpire," Morris posted on X.

"Foot has claimed he did so without using the word ‘cheat’. Lawyers involved, a possible tribunal hearing awaits.

"Butters & Port denying anything untoward & no audio available of the alleged remarks."

Channel 7 Adelaide's Josh Money suggests the Power believes there is a "breakdown in communication" and that Foot might have mistaken the use of the word 'pay' or 'paid' to be questioning his integrity.

Foot can be heard saying: “I’ve reported you, I’m reporting you.”

Butters quickly replied: “For what?”

Butters would then approach Foot after the final siren but the umpire was not interested in conversing with the three-time best and fairest.

The AFL has “absolutely no choice” but to clean up the mess that is the Butters-Foot situation.

In the aftermath of the decision, Butters spoke to Channel 7 to explain why he approached Foot while denying that he abused the match official.

“I’d love to know the language that I said because I went up to him after the game and obviously wanted to have a chat like any two humans do,” Butters told Xander McGuire.

“He said he didn’t want to speak to me. All I said was ‘how is that a free kick?’, and he gave 50 and said I’m on report. I had a few teammates right next to me, Ollie Wines, so I’m curious to follow that one up because I’m never going to say anything bad to the umpires.

“So I just wanted to follow up and ask what he thought I said.”

McGuire asked if Butters used any expletives directed at Foot.

“Genuinely no swear words or any bad language. That’s why I was curious,” he replied.

“Obviously, I was a bit frustrated because it leads to a goal, and I think I’m a pretty honest bloke out there and have a good relationship with most umpires.

“I’m sure the club will deal with that.”

Butters insisted he would fight any charge if it was forthcoming.

“I’d fight for the hills because I know what I said and I know I didn’t say anything bad,” he said confidently.

SEN Fireball’s Kane Cornes and David King discussed the incident on Monday morning.

Cornes says the AFL simply must let the public know what transpired between Foot and Butters.

Cornes: “Pretty convincing I would have thought.

“I wouldn’t have thought Zak Butters is going to stake his reputation if he wasn’t adamant that nothing had been said.

“We need clarification quickly from the AFL on this one, there needs to be a statement released really quickly because it was a crucial decision.

“You can’t have a player placed on report for saying, ‘What was that for?’”

King: “The whole thing's weird, isn't it.

“I just wonder what the word is. The he said, he said with Lance Collard who has been found guilty when he's stuck to his story the whole way through.

“What has Zak Butters said?”

Cornes: “So the difference here is that there's multiple witnesses you would think.”

King: “So has he abused the umpire, is that what they're saying?”

Cornes: “I’m saying he hasn't. The umpire thinks he has, though. So what has the umpire thought he said?”

King: “He would have to have called him a cheat or something.”

Cornes: “It would have to be words that strong because a 50-metre penalty is one thing for abusive language. So that would be a swear word or ‘you idiot’ or something like that.

“To actually be placed on report for abusive language is another level. So what's the level that he thinks he's gone to to not only pay a free kick and a 50 for abusive language, but to then actually report him?

“And Butters is the captain of the club standing there on free-to-air television in front of a million people saying ‘I didn't say it’ or ‘whatever he thinks I said I didn’t, I’m an honest person, Ollie Wines has heard me, I've spoken to the club’. Ollie's very much willing to testify that Butters has said what was that for.

“So the AFL has got to clean up this mess. And then after the game, for the umpire not to engage with a captain of a club. I would ask the question, if that was Scott Pendlebury, or if that was Marcus Bontempelli, would the AFL umpire engage with him? The captain of the club after the game, who's calmly gone up to him, said, ‘Mate, you've just reported me for abusive language, this is what I said. What did you think I would have said?’

“I would have thought that's an important conversation to have post-game.”

King: “I think you're entitled to know at any point what the report is for. Immediately if he asks, an hour later if he asked post-game, whatever.

“You have to be informed of what the report is actually about .”

Cornes: “So if the umpire has botched this, and they've got microphones on clearly because we hear their decision-making process in broadcast. Now those mics get turned up and turned down.

“He's wearing a microphone so there there has to be audio.”

King: “So if Zak has said something it'll be on that tape.”

Cornes: “Correct. So we need the AFL to release the tape and then we can judge for ourselves what has been said.

“And if has botched this, Nick Foot, what's what's the ramifications for him? Because that is a big decision to make.”

King: “If it's just an error, we live with that, don't we?”

Cornes: “But then he's placed him on report, he's made a big song and dance about it, he hasn't engaged with Zak after the game, what's the ramifications? Because it's big for Zak, there's a certain level of shame that comes with when you let your team down at a crucial time.

“So what's the ramifications for the umpire?

“It’s a big morning for the AFL. They sometimes release decision-making errors, sometimes they don’t.

“With this one they have absolutely no choice but to go back and listen to the tape and release what was actually said.”