Fremantle ruck Mason Cox has said AFL players and coaches shouldn't be fined if they voice legitimate concerns for the league, its umpires or the judicial process, saying it's "okay not to agree" with the processes in place.
Earlier this week, the AFL handed down a directive to clubs warning players and coaches that public criticism of the Match Review Officer, the tribunal, or the AFL's umpires could result in a financial penalty, following a couple of high-profile incidents in recent weeks.
Suns coach Damien Hardwick was critical of the umpiring in his side's loss at Geelong in Round 14, while North Melbourne's Jy Simpkin took to Instagram to describe the MRO's decision to ban Paul Curtis for three weeks for a dangerous tackle as "laughable".
On the ESPN Footy Podcast's Red Time show, Cox said while he understands why the AFL doesn't want players and coaches to be overly critical of the league, players should be able to have an opinion without the threat of financial sanctions.
"This is a wild situation. I understand both sides of the coin here. I do get that the AFL wants to shackle everyone to make sure that there's only positive news that comes out," Cox said.
"I can understand both sides of it. I think there should be more personalities, and if you don't agree with something, you should be able to say it, whether it's on a social media account, whatever it might be. I think that's part of it.
"I don't think there are too many umpires that are paying attention to [the noise]. Maybe there are, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I'm not an umpire."
The AFL said it feared umpire criticism would filter down to amateur and junior levels, and reminded players and coaches of the published rules regarding speaking out about umpires.
But Cox said unless the criticism was personal or nasty in nature, it should be fair game.
"I think it's okay to not agree with someone. I don't think we need to be [giving out] financial citations because someone said that they don't agree with an opinion," he said.
"Like I understand if it's going at a specific person, but if it's going at the processes that are in place to say we need to make them better. I don't think that's an issue."
Weighing in on the Simpkin example, Cox said it would be a non-issue if he hadn't used the phrase he did.
"If [Simpkin] changed the terminology of 'laughable' to 'needs to be better', we're probably not even having this conversation, right?" Cox said on Red Time.
"I think [the AFL] took offence to ['laughable'], because it looks as though they are not intelligent enough to be able to handle a situation, right?
"But if you say it just needs to be better, then I think a lot of people can agree that you are trying to make the whole system [better] so there's no kind of cloudiness around these decisions."