Former South Africa spinner Paul Adams has raised fingers on the ethics of New Zealand skipper Kane Williamson after the latter stood his ground while he nicked the ball and was given not out by the umpire during New Zealand’s tie with South Africa in the ongoing World Cup on Wednesday.
The match was played at Edgbaston cricket ground in Birmingham.
Adams tweeted, “Why didn’t Kane Williamson walk.”
Why didn’t Kane Williamson walk 👀 #CWC19 #SAvsNZ pic.twitter.com/H3Cj6M4pGy
— Paul Adams (@PaulAdams39) June 19, 2019
“If Kane Williamson was Mankad after he didn’t walk. Would he be upset,” asked the former left-arm wrist spinner in another tweet, sparking a debate on the micro-blogging website.
If Kane Williamson was Mankad after he didn’t walk. Would he be upset 👀
— Paul Adams (@PaulAdams39) June 19, 2019
Responses flooded in after Adams’ tweet.
“Never question Kane’s ethics, if anyone is known for unselfish play it is him, if he thought he was out he would have gone. It wouldn’t have changed anything, the @blackcaps will always beat you with a couple to go,” said a Twitter user.
Some, however, tried to justify Williamson’s action.
“After kohli incident, every batsmen should be cautious while walking on caught behind. He must have thought the same,” said a user.
Some pointed to the obvious, saying, “Why didn’t South Africa appeal is the real question mate.”
The drama erupted in the last ball of the 38th over of New Zealand’s innings.
An Imran Tahir-delivery went past Williamson’s willow.
Tahir appealed loudly expecting some sort of contact as the ball passed the bat. The umpires didn’t seem interested.
Tahir strolled and stared but got nothing from his keeper Quinton de Kock. None of the ring fielders spotted it either. Amidst this chaos, Proteas’ captain Faf du Plessis was at long-on and he got no signs from anyone to challenge the decision.
Later on, the Ultra-edge confirmed of a nick – a clear spike. Had the decision been challenged, Williamson – the match-winner for New Zealand – would have been out. Surely the match could have gone either way from that point on.
Surviving the scare, Williamson went on to play a blinding 106 not out to take his team home with a thrilling finish.
Meanwhile, du Plessis, in the post-match presser, explained that he trusted de Kock’s judgement and that’s why he didn’t go for a review.
“We weren’t aware of it. I think I was at long on at the time, and Quinny is the closest to the action. He’s always my go to man,” du Plessis said when asked about the reprieve.
“I just thought it was a plain miss. I just heard about it now at the post-match that he said he had a nick on it. But even Kane said he didn’t know he had to fine tune it. He would have referred it. But that’s not where the game was won and lost,” he added.
With just three points from six games, the Proteas are all but out of the contention for the semi-finals.