The AFL tribunal has explained its decision to find Zak Butters guilty of umpire abuse.

At a tribunal hearing on Tuesday night, Butters’ charge against umpire Nick Foot was upheld after the whistleblower reported the Port Adelaide superstar for questioning his integrity following a contentious free kick during the Power’s Sunday night loss to St Kilda.

WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: Zak Butters fined for umpire abuse

It means Butters has been fined $1500 for umpire abuse. Port Adelaide are still considering their position and whether or not they will appeal the decision.

Given the duration of Tuesday night’s marathon hearing, the tribunal released only its decision, not the explanation.

But in a statement on Wednesday, the AFL revealed the three-person tribunal’s reasoning.

“On a careful consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Butters made the offending comment,” the statements reads.

Butters gave evidence that he made only one comment to Foot, and that the comment was: “Surely that’s not a free kick”.

Foot’s evidence refuted that claim, saying he was “100 per cent adamant” that Butters had said, “How much are they paying you?”.

“It is implausible that Mr Foot would invent the offending comment and it was not put to him that he had done so. It was put to him that there were several distractions and that he had misheard what Mr Butters said,” the tribunal’s statement continued.

“We also consider that to be implausible. It is implausible that Mr Foot misheard the words ‘Surely that’s not a free kick’ as ‘How much are they paying you?’

“None of the words that Mr Butters said he spoke are any of the words that Mr Foot believes he heard. Mr Foot was certain as to what he heard.”

Also working against Butters’ case was that teammate Ollie Wines, who himself was remonstrating with the umpire over the decision on Saturday night, gave evidence that Butters made more than one comment.

Wines’s evidence was inconsistent with that of Butters, but appears consistent with the vision of the incident.

“We reject Mr Butters’ evidence that he only made one comment about the free kick against player Sweet (“Surely that’s not a free kick”) and that his only comment was made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to move the ball on,” the tribunal explained.

“The evidence as to him only making that one comment is contrary to the evidence of Mr Foot who said that Mr Butters made more than one comment.

“It was also not Mr Wines’ evidence that he only heard Mr Butters comment to Mr Foot on one occasion. Consistent with Mr Foot’s evidence, Mr Wines said that he heard Mr Butters comment on the free kick more than once.

“We also accept the AFL’s submission that it would be peculiar for Mr Butters to make his only comment about the umpiring decision just before the St Kilda player took his free kick. This is because Mr Butters appears in the vision to be unhappy with the umpiring decision as soon as it was made, he told the Tribunal he was very frustrated with the decision and he stood close to Mr Foot for some time including while Mr Wines was himself complaining about the decision.

“We find that Mr Butters made more than one comment to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision and that his final comment, made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move on with his free kick, was the offending comment.

“It is not surprising that Mr Wines did not hear the offending comment. Mr Foot’s unchallenged evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment at a lower volume than his eartier comments.”

“We do not find it surprising or unusual that Mr Foot’s microphone did not capture the comments made by Mr Butters or Mr Wines. It is apparent from the vision that the microphone did not capture all that was said by players during the events. There are many possible reasons for that, including the positioning of players to the microphone.”

A slight variation in the separate accounts Butters gave to Channel 7 and to the tribunal was not a factor in the tribunal’s decision because “the difference was minor”.

“Finally, and for completeness, we do not consider the variation in Mr Butters’ accounts of what he said was his only comment to be of any significance,” the statement goes on.

“He told the media that he had said something different to what he told Mr Rutten and the Tribunal he had said. The difference was minor. The variation was of no assistance in determining whether Mr Butters had made the additional offending comment.”

Port Adelaide are yet to confirm whether they will appeal the decision, but Power chair David Koch is “pretty certain” they will.

“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 on Wednesday of Butters’ reaction to the guilty verdict.

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.”

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.”

- With AAP