Racing
League
Rugby
Cricket
Golf
Olympics
Football
Netball
Motorsport
Combat Sports
Basketball
Other Sports
Sport Nation
Full Noise by SN
Important update on 1476AMCornes: AFL has “absolutely no choice” but to clean up Butters-umpire mess
SEN • April 13th, 2026 9:50 am
The AFL has “absolutely no choice” but to clean up the mess that is the Zak Butters and umpire Nick Foot situation.
In the third quarter of Port Adelaide’s eventual 14-point loss to St Kilda on Sunday night, Power’s acting captain Butters was reported for abusive language by Foot who also paid a 50-metre penalty against the home side at the Adelaide Oval.
The decision resulted in an easy goal for Mitch Owens just as the Power were getting some even footing in the contest.
Butters would then approach Foot after the final siren but the umpire was not interested in conversing with the three-time best and fairest.
“I’ve reported you, I’m reporting you,” Foot said on the broadcast vision.
Butters quickly replied: “For what?”
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.”
