James Hird has implored Zak Butters to appeal the AFL tribunal's guilty verdict on him for abusive and insulting language towards an umpire and the subsequent $1500 fine.
The AFL Players Association on Wednesday morning labelled the verdict "deeply concerning".
Butters' case was heard on Tuesday, and testimony from himself, teammate Ollie Wines and Port head of football Ben Rutten wasn't enough to get him off the verdict.
READ MORE: 'Drives me mad': Eddie calls for changes after Butters case
READ MORE: Liverpool crash out of Europe, Barca star's dummy spit
READ MORE: Garcia apologises, admits 'regret' over Masters meltdown
The Port star had been accused of asking umpire Nick Foot "how much are they paying you?" after he awarded a free kick.
The tribunal could not provide its reasons for the decision because the hearing had reached the deadline and the chair had an appointment to go to. Those reasons will be delivered tomorrow.
In the aftermath, Butters said he was "disappointed" and doubled down on his not guilty plea.
"I stand by knowing what I said and what I didn't say, especially what I didn't say," he said.
"I'd like to thank the club for the support. Thank you."
Hird believes this case now comes down to Butters' character because the tribunal has essentially said he's lying.
"If I was Zak Butters, I'd be taking this all the way," he said on Nine's Footy Classified.
"If you definitely know you didn't say it, you can't have that on your character. It's a slur on your character.
"If he didn't say it, it should be fought all the way to the end."
Footy Classified is now available as a podcast! Subscribe/follow via Apple, Spotify or Google Podcasts
AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher said via a Wednesday morning statement that the body was "very disappointed" in the outcome.
"A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the tribunal," he said in a statement on Wednesday morning.
"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."
On Footy Classified, Isaac Smith added that a fine isn't the appropriate punishment for questioning the integrity of an umpire, suggesting it should be a three or four week suspension.
The premiership winner also believes Butters and Foot should have spoken about the incident behind closed doors after the match. Butters had said he tried to approach the umpire but was ignored. In the hearing, Foot said that's the advice given to umpires after reporting an offence.
Foot was first to give evidence, stating he was "100 per cent adamant" with what Butters had said and that it "questioned my integrity".
In the hearing, Butters claimed he said "surely that's not a free kick?" after he told Seven post-match he'd said "how is that a free kick?"
Wines backed up his teammate while Rutten said the player was "visibly upset" about what had happened.
The deadline for the tribunal hearing was for 5.45pm (AEST) and a short deliberation led to the guilty verdict but no reasons were given.
Port Adelaide released a statement after the hearing saying the club is "deeply disappointed" in the verdict.
"Zak is a man of outstanding character and we are acutely aware of the toll these proceedings take, not only for him but for his family and those closest to him," chief executive Matthew Richardson said.
Eddie McGuire reported on Footy Classified that the club is "filthy" it has to wait for the findings.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.