JOHANNESBURG: The Pakistan cricket group administration has approached the match referee of the second ODI between Pakistan and South Africa over the run out controversy involving Fakhar Zaman and Proteas wicketkeeper Quinton de Kock, sources advised Geo Information.
Pakistan group supervisor Mansoor Rana approached match referee Andy Pycroft after the match and spoke to him concerning the controversy.
The sources stated that Pakistan didn’t launch a proper grievance over the controversy however the supervisor mentioned the difficulty with Pycroft to deliver the issue to his discover.
Learn extra: Did Quinton de Kock intentionally distract Fakhar Zaman earlier than he obtained run out? Social media thinks so
On Sunday, Fakhar smashed South African bowlers all-over the bottom and scored an virtually match-winning knock of 193 in Johannesburg.
The opening batsman was run out whereas coming for a second run as he slowed down, apparently assuming that the ball was heading in the direction of the opposite finish, earlier than realising that ball was coming in the direction of the tip he’s operating at.
A TV replay confirmed that it was most likely not only a misunderstanding and, in truth, the South African wicket-keeper Quinton de Kock distracted Fakhar together with his actions (suggesting the ball goes in the direction of the opposite finish) and that presumably satisfied Fakhar that he was operating in the direction of a secure finish.
Learn extra: Babar Azam ‘proud’ of opener Fakhar Zaman for good innings
Pakistani cricket followers and former cricketers have expressed their displeasure on the incident suggesting that the dismissal ought to have been struck off with 5 penalty runs and an additional supply awarded to the chasing facet underneath regulation 45.5.1 of the sport.
Clause 41.5.1 of the cricket legal guidelines states that “it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract, deceive or obstruct either batsman after the striker has received the ball”. As well as, clause 41.5.2 says that “It is for either one of the umpires to decide whether any distraction, deception or obstruction is wilful or not.”