Barking dogs and a real estate agent: how a farcical AFL tribunal could prompt change | Jo Khan
In words no one could have predicted using two weeks ago, in the end it was a real estate agent who ostensibly brought down the AFL’s case against Zak Butters.The Port Adelaide player was cleared of umpire abuse on Monday night, after the AFL appeals board overturned the tribunal’s verdict based on an “error of law” through a “miscarriage of justice”.It brought to a close a farcical chapter that started with missing evidence and ended with barking dogs.And between those unusual bookends, Butters’ case took several other unexpectedly comical turns.Umpire abuse is a serious issue – one that permeates every level of sport from grassroots to the elite – and cracking down on it at the top level sends an important message.
Yet when field umpire Nick Foot claimed Butters had asked, “How much are they paying you?” after he awarded St Kilda a free kick, it wasn’t those words that drew shock and condemnation.It was instead the reminder that an AFL umpire is allowed to work for a sports betting agency.Since January 2025, Foot has been a broadcast host and racing analyst with Sportsbet, which is also the AFL’s exclusive gambling partner.Sportsbet and the AFL have an intimate relationship.The betting company’s blue and yellow branding flickers intrusively around stadiums, its ads smother free-to-air TV match coverage, and its odds have to be manually turned off if you don’t want to be constantly bombarded by them in the AFL app.
With increasing public disdain for the pervasiveness of gambling in sport, how can the AFL allow an umpire to also work in sport betting?Against St Kilda in round five, Butters was put on report by Foot immediately after the alleged incident, and straight after the game denied he made the comment.But in what would normally be a cut and dried case of umpire abuse, things instantly took a turn for the absurd when it was revealed there was no audio of Butters’ comment, despite Foot’s microphone clearly picking up audio either side of it.Last week’s tribunal hearing thus inevitably devolved into a case of “he said, he said”, with Butters vehemently denying he said the words and Foot similarly adamant he did.The tribunal ultimately sided with the umpire, and Butters was fined $1,500 – amounting to a slap on the wrist for what should be seen as a serious offence.Now take a deep breath and forget all of that, because the issue at the heart of Port’s appeal against the tribunal ruling was not related to an umpire’s part-time gig in sports betting, but someone else’s occupation.
There was barely a whisper about the on-field incident during Monday’s appeal.Instead, the conduct of a former Essendon player turned real estate agent was in the spotlight.Part way through last week’s tribunal, panel member Jason Johnson briefly disconnected from the online hearing to switch from his desktop computer to his phone.A small interruption in itself, but what he did next “was inexplicable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice”, Port argued in their appeal.Johnson got in his car and drove to an open house inspection.
Driving can sometimes feel like an automatic process, especially if it is on a well-known route,But it still requires a significant amount of attention meaning that any other tasks attempted at the same time can’t be given full attention,Port emphasised this point, inferring Johnson was distracted,“The board cannot be satisfied that Mr Johnson in those circumstances was paying proper attention to his duties and adjudicating appropriately,”It took just 14 minutes for the appeals board to agree with Port and throw out the charge.
The board concluded that Johnson’s conduct “constituted a miscarriage of justice” and was “clearly an error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the tribunal”.And so, presumably in a first for the AFL, its tribunal process was brought down by a real estate agent.The interruptions were not limited to the initial tribunal hearing, though.It was almost fitting that in the midst of ravaging Johnson for his conduct, Port’s legal counsel, Paul Ehrlich KC’s appeal arguments were interrupted by his barking dogs.The lawyer had to mute himself to tell them to shut up.
Luckily for Port, Ehrlich’s distraction did not affect the appeal outcome.The saga, while laughable in nature, ends with the AFL being forced to apologise to Butters, Foot and Port Adelaide, and confront two serious problems: questions about the tribunal process and whether an umpire should be working for a betting company.The fact a tribunal decision has been thrown out due to a panel member’s divided attention suggests the system is not working as intended, Port argued.The Butters case has brought renewed scrutiny of Foot’s Sportsbet role, with reports the AFL is reconsidering its appropriateness.There is no suggestion that Foot was or has ever been compromised, but it’s hard to see how an umpire working in sports betting was anything other than an integrity disaster waiting to happen for the AFL.
They probably didn’t expect it to unfold like this though.
Ed Miliband says he and Lammy feared Mandelson appointment could ‘blow up’
Ed Miliband and David Lammy discussed concerns that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to Washington could “blow up”, the energy secretary has revealed.Miliband said he spoke to Lammy, who was foreign secretary at the time Mandelson was given the Washington post, and both expressed reservations.Mandelson was sacked after nine months in the job after new disclosures about his relationship with the late financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.The Guardian revealed last week that Mandelson had failed his initial security vetting, which had then been overruled by the Foreign Office, leading to the sacking of the department’s permanent secretary, Oliver Robbins.Robbins will give evidence to a select committee of MPs on Tuesday morning
Will Olly Robbins’ testimony jeopardise Keir Starmer’s defence?
On Monday, Keir Starmer testified in front of the Commons about what he knew about the vetting process behind Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington.On Tuesday, Olly Robbins – whom Starmer sacked as head of the Foreign Office last week – will give his side of the story under questioning by MPs on the foreign affairs select committee.Robbins is said by friends to be upset by the claims ministers are making. But what are the questions he will be asked, and what might they mean for the prime minister’s future?Robbins is very unlikely to give details of the vetting process or what exactly officials discovered, given this is supposed to be strictly confidential. But MPs are likely to press him on whether anything new was found during the vetting process or whether it only flagged previously known concerns
Peter Mandelson: a timeline of his appointment as UK ambassador to US
In a pivotal Commons statement to MPs on Monday, Keir Starmer laid out the most detailed timeline of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK ambassador to the US, the vetting process that ended with the Foreign Office overruling the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) and what he said were chances to tell him that civil servants had failed to take.Cabinet Office conducts a due diligence exercise on how suitable Mandelson was for the role. Starmer told the Commons his No 10 staff put questions to Mandelson on the department’s behalf.Mandelson responded to questions from the Cabinet Office’s due diligence exercise, posed to him by Downing Street staff, Starmer told MPs in the Commons.“I made the decision to appoint him,” Starmer told MPs, after receiving final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December 2024
Starmer accuses Robbins of obstructing truth about Mandelson vetting
Keir Starmer has accused Olly Robbins of deliberately and repeatedly obstructing the truth about the Mandelson vetting scandal before a high-jeopardy appearance of the sacked top official before MPs on Tuesday.Six days after the prime minister said he had learned that his pick for Washington ambassador had failed security vetting, Starmer admitted his decision to appoint him had been a fundamental mistake.But in a sombre address to parliament, he insisted the Foreign Office was to blame for a “staggering” and “incredible” decision not to brief him, or anybody else in Downing Street, about the vetting advice.Starmer told MPs that the vetting information had now been handed to the trusted Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is expected to assess it before returning it to the government within days for public release.The Guardian understands this includes a short summary document including details of Mandelson’s personal life, and financial and business dealings – which the prime minister is also believed to have now seen – as well as the recommendation that Mandelson had failed vetting
Mobile phones to be banned in schools in England under new plans
A ban on mobile phones in schools in England is to be introduced by the government to ensure that “critical safeguarding legislation” is passed.The government will table an amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill in the House of Lords after the bill was held up by peers on opposition benches.It will make existing guidance on mobile phone bans in schools statutory, a move that ministers have resisted until now.The government had consistently argued that the vast majority of schools had already banned mobile phones, and that there was no need to add a legal requirement. They finally capitulated, however, describing it as “a pragmatic measure” to get the bill through
How safe is Starmer’s premiership after his Mandelson vetting statement to MPs?
Labour MPs frustrated with the lack of a clear mission from Keir Starmer’s No 10 have often urged the prime minister to be more forceful in his arguments, to prosecute his values, to find an enemy to define himself against.The prime minister has found one: Olly Robbins. Starmer prosecuted his case against the former Foreign Office chief on Monday with the vigour of his former life at the bar.He came armed with timelines and letters and the promise of a new inquiry. He insisted that, had he known Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting, his original sin of appointing him as US ambassador would not have been committed
Kevin Warsh: Trump’s ideal choice to push Fed to cut interest rates
Primark to split from food business despite warning of Iran war impact
Fifteen years after Steve Jobs, Tim Cook leaves a dramatically different Apple
Tim Cook to step down as Apple chief as John Ternus named replacement
Vibrating crotches, anal beads and suspicious minds: the long, strange history of chess cheats | Sean Ingle
‘I’m not the boss’: Lando Norris is articulate, open and intelligent – when he’s allowed to be