Zak Butters’ bid to exonerate himself after being reported for abusive language has taken a fresh twist, with audio from the umpire microphone appearing to be unavailable.

Port Adelaide superstar Butters cost his side a crucial goal on Sunday night when he was placed on report by umpire Nick Foot for questioning a contentious free kick, which resulted in a 50-metre penalty and certain major for the Saints.

WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: Zak Butters placed on report by Nick Foot

“I’m reporting you,” Foot could be heard saying.

Butters immediately replied with, “For what?”.

Speaking to Channel 7 post-match, Butters said he tried to ask umpire Foot after the game what it was for, but was turned away.

“I’d love to know the language that I said, because I went up to him after the game to have a chat and he said he didn’t want to speak to me,” Butters said.

“All I said was, ‘how is that a free kick’ and he paid 50 and said I’m on report.

“I had a few teammates there right next to me, Ollie Wines ... I’m curious to follow that one up because I’m never going to say anything bad to the umpires.

“I just wanted to follow up and ask what he thought I said from his end.”

He went on to say he definitely didn’t use any expletives and will defend himself against any potential charges.

“I think I’m a pretty honest bloke out there and have a good relationship with most umpires so I’m sure the club will deal with that,” he added.

“I’d fight to the hills because I know what I said and I didn’t say anything bad.”

Umpires wear microphones at all times throughout matches, but they are turned up and down by AFL officials at different stages of the game, so it’s possible Foot’s was muted after he initially told Butters of the report.

The isolated audio file from the umpire’s microphone during the incident, obtained by 7NEWS, has unearthed nothing more than what was heard from Butters, Wines and Foot. during the broadcast.

7NEWS Adelaide’s Josh Money said Port are preparing to head to the tribunal to defend Butters.

“As it stands Port Adelaide is expecting Zak Butters to head to the tribunal to contest alleged umpire abuse,” he said.

“Understand the club believes there’s a possible breakdown in communication.

“The use of the word pay or paid in relation to a free kick, could mistakenly be heard to be questioning umpire Foot’s integrity.

“Butters adamant no inappropriate language was used.”

Channel 7’s Kane Cornes said the AFL needs to find a way to clarify the confusion.

“I wouldn’t have thought Zak Butters is going to stake his reputation if he wasn’t adamant that nothing had been said,” Cornes told SEN on Monday morning.

“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?’

“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.”

David King added: “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.”