NMFC 18

@maxlaughton Id imagine the deadline is twofold...firstly we dont want lawyers turning matters into week long proceedings, ...and the relevant parties need time to document and then vet the findings before publication in a timely manner which it seems isnt timely enough for most

An actual problem with the Tribunal: two hearings in a row they've had a deadline which means we may not get a decision tonight, and are very unlikely to get reasons for a decision if one's made. Either force the hearings to be earlier, or shorter, or don't have a deadline!

@joshmoney__ @7AFL @7NewsAdelaide Id be interested to hear on what grounds considering an appeal is predicated on new evidence being tabled.

Port Adelaide chairman David Koch says he’s “pretty certain” the club will appeal the decision to uphold Zak Butters’ fine for umpire abuse. Club will receive tribunal findings and make its decision this morning @7AFL @7NewsAdelaide

@RalphyHeraldSun Well the media have dared them to Jon.....look forward to your write up on the AFLUAs response

David Koch says he is “pretty certain” the Power will appeal the Butters decision

@XanderMcGuire7 Id imagine the umpires are also pretty important when it comes to confidence in the system...if they decide 150k a year isnt worth the abuse then good luck.

The AFL Players’ Association has issued the following statement attributed to AFLPA CEO, James Gallagher:   “We are deeply disappointed by last night’s Tribunal outcome for Port Adelaide’s Zak Butters.   “A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the Tribunal.   “The Tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak’s version of events, including testimony of Zak’s teammate Ollie Wines, nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning.   “In the off-season, we made it clear to the AFL that we would closely monitor the Tribunal’s decisions during 2026 given concerns raised by players in recent seasons. It is important that all participants in the game, but most importantly the players, have confidence in the disciplinary system to which they’re subjected.   “We’ve offered our full support to Zak and Port Adelaide in exploring their options to appeal.” @7AFL @7NewsMelbourne

@XanderMcGuire7 The aflpa passing its own judgement. Now we need to hear from the AFLUA backing the umpire.

@HarfSerious 💯....well said.

The #Foot v #Butters case was an impossible. But the decision ticks lots of boxes. Zac will be annoyed at not being believed. The $1500 will be covered my the club. No game missed. In 2 weeks no one remembers. Nick gets employer support, convinced he'd been aggrieved. #OTTN

@FootyonNine And what about the character of the umpire James??

"I actually find it difficult to understand how the tribunal has come to this decision" "If I'm Zak Butters I'd be taking this all the way." The panel reacts to the tribunal's decision on the Port Adelaide star. #9FootyClassified | Watch on 9 & 9Now 🖥️

@shanemcinnes @TonyShaw22 This is less about the afl not having a reason and more about lawyers taking the required time to document the summation whilst ensuring the legal elements are accurately captured and explained...even more so considering the attention this matter has garnered.

@TonyShaw22 They never gave their reasons though. Shawry. They said “guilty. $1500. We’ll tell you why tomorrow”. Farcical.

He’s disappointed with the result, and to make it worse, is given no reason as to why the verdict is what it is. Not good enough.

@TonyShaw22 @shanemcinnes If the umpire is adamant and the afl dont back him then what is the knock on effect on all umpires? If Foot quits after 15 years because the afl didnt back him then the afl has a greater umpiring issue.

@shanemcinnes Reason is tribunal believed ump and didn’t like little shift in Butters recollections Shane. Can’t see anything changing if Port appeal. Tell Zac you believe him. Zac can always state his innocence and Port save $10k.

@FOXFOOTY @LaurenHeraldSun Aflpa off the top ropes is ridiculous and inflammatory.

THEY HAVE TO... DON'T THEY ⁉️ Port Adelaide are "angry and bemused". Zak Butters is "completely filthy". So, surely the Power appeal? Plus, the "astronomical" cost on the AFL, as revealed by @LaurenHeraldSun on #MidweekTackle 💰 REACTION & FALLOUT ➡️ bit.ly/3O1DY27

@bradeningram And what about the AFLUA?? How happy are they about how their umpire has been treated??

I understand the AFL players association is incensed by the Zak Butters decision. Its chief James Gallagher has already spoken with the Port star who is understandably livid. A decision on whether the Power appeal will wait until the club receives the tribunal’s findings tomorrow. @FootyonNine

@7AFL Ironic they keep mentioning the brownlow medallist has credibility but the 300 game umpire doesnt.

"I don't see why a Tribunal could not have determined that 'we don't think anyone's lying, we just think there was a mishearing'." 🗣️ Caroline Wilson on the fallout from Zak Butters' Tribunal hearing

@RalphyHeraldSun @FOXFOOTY So to be seen as balanced should the AFLUA also weigh in??

Time for the AFLPA to go into battle for their players with a very strong public stance, which new AFLPA boss James Gallagher is up for. Port is shattered by the ruling but also bemused by little things like having to wait until tomorrow for the explanation for the ruling which means it has to wait to decide upon an appeal

@DavidZita1 @FOXFOOTY Its a smart move..reduces the possible fallout on relevant parties.

@FOXFOOTY If Butters is found guilty, the AFL is seeking a $1500 fine.

Zak Butters is fronting the AFL Tribunal. Follow via @FOXFOOTY and this thread.

@FOXFOOTY Grilling...30k to ask are you sure and is it possible you misheard...the defence rests

'100% ADAMANT THOSE WERE THE WORDS' Umpire Nick Foot received a grilling from Port Adelaide's lawyer who suggested he was "not prepared to admit he might be wrong" and "needed to justify the 50-metre penalty". LATEST >> bit.ly/4mvpaFE

@cleary_mitch @7NewsMelbourne @7NewsAdelaide @7AFL This is more about suppressing the potential fallout as most rational people will see it as low enough to stop attacks on the afl and umpire and enough that it still sends a message....

Zak Butters is currently before the AFL Tribunal. Both the AFL and Port Adelaide are comfortable with a $1500 fine should the charge be upheld @7NewsMelbourne @7NewsAdelaide @7AFL

@RalphyHeraldSun Jon, what process does the AFL follow when assessing 3rd party roles? Considering its link with betting agencies what does the afl do to ensure no inappropriate behaviour takes place. Has Foot ever been reprimanded in his 15 years of umpiring?

How the crazy day played out yesterday 👇 The AFL scoffs at any talk that Foot shouldn’t be allowed to have a second job in racing which includes the Sportsbet link. Butters certainly wasn’t aware of it. But there are some in AFL House who say the optics aren’t great especially because of the reaction we have seen over the past 24 hours. He isn’t a shrinking violet. He would have had plenty of byplay over 270 games with AFL players. So clearly believes he heard it & believes it attacked his integrity. What a challenging tribunal coming up

@FOXFOOTY Existing players accepting less to keep a squad together is a little different imo to attracting a new player.

‘Got to take less to keep a good team together ...’ #OntheCouch, Hall of Fame Legend Leigh Matthews made a big call on the two clubs thought to be leading the race for Zak Butters’ services. MORE >> bit.ly/3OD7vPK

@7AFL The swans knew exactly what they were doing.

"I hear that Charlie Curnow wants to be a role player... You don't give up three first-round picks and two much-loved players for a role player." 🗣️ Kane Cornes on Charlie Curnow's start to 2026

@LaurenHeraldSun The hypocrisy within the media is alarming. The industry is littered with betting agreements, sponsorships and endorsements however an umpire is the only person whose integrity is challenged. The AFLs only interest in optics is if it involves a specsavers sponsorship.

People howled us down for writing this story last year. Whether the AFL has an issue with the optics of an official working at a betting agency is up to them. But at the very least doing so opens it up to alleged comments being taken in a range of ways. heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/gamb…