AFL Tribunal releases reasons for finding Zak Butters guilty of abusive and insulting language to umpire Nick Foot

Port Adelaide is preparing to appeal Zak Butters's fine for umpire abuse, believing the star midfielder has been branded a liar by the AFL Tribunal verdict.

As the AFL Players' Association (AFLPA) expresses deep concern at the tribunal not believing Butters's testimony, Port chairman David Koch is "pretty certain" the club will appeal.

"He's incredibly angry with the outcome. He quite rightly believes he's been dubbed a liar in all this," Koch told Adelaide radio station 5AA.

Butters, charged with using abusive and insulting language towards an umpire, was fined $1,500 by the tribunal on Tuesday.

The tribunal distributed its written judgement just after 2:30pm AEST on Wednesday, almost 24 hours after Butters's hearing began.

The tribunal sided with field umpire Nick Foot, who alleged Butters said "How much are they paying you?" after he awarded a free kick to St Kilda in Port's 14-point loss on Sunday night.

Butters vehemently denied that comment, insisting he said: "Surely that's not a free kick."

AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher said the organisation was "deeply disappointed" by the tribunal outcome.

"A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the tribunal," Gallagher said in a statement.

"The tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak's version of events … nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning."

Complicating the matter was the fact the entire verbal exchange was not picked up by umpire Foot's microphone — though some comments before and after were.

"There are many possible reasons for that, including the positioning of players to the microphone," the tribunal said in its written judgement.

The tribunal was "satisfied to the requisite standard" that Butters made the offending comment.

"It is implausible that Mr Foot would invent the offending comment and it was not put to him that he had done so," the judgement said.

"It was put to him that there were several distractions and that he had misheard what Mr Butters said. We also consider that to be implausible."

The flashpoint came when Foot paid a free kick to St Kilda's Mitch Owens, prompting Port's Ollie Wines and Butters to protest.

Butters was penalised 50m and reported for abusive language by Foot.

"The comment that Butters made to me was, 'How much are they paying you?'" Foot told the tribunal.

Foot interpreted "they" as being "the St Kilda Football Club or someone involved with St Kilda".

"It questioned my integrity," he said.

"I'm 100 per cent adamant that those are the words Zak Butters said to me."

But Butters said he was "100 per cent sure" he did not say "how much are they paying you" to Foot.

"I recall saying 'surely that's not a free kick'," Butters told the tribunal.

AFL Umpires Association chief executive Rob Kerr defended Foot.

"Nick Foot has never wavered from his account," Kerr said in a statement.

"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."

Click here to read article