It's been reported as a hasty, pre-match decision that came about because of poor communication and organisation.
On one side is Cricket South Africa (CSA) and its directive for Proteas players, currently competing at the T20 World Cup in Dubai - to take a knee before matches in supportof antiracism.
On the other side is Quinton de Kock, the team's 23-year-old wicketkeeper and batsman whose refusal to follow the directive resulted in a missed match a week ago.
At the time, South Africa were preparing to play the West Indies. It was their second match of the tournament. CSA said the directive was issued after sideline images from the Proteas' previous match showed players in an assortment of stances - some kneeling, some with fists raised, some standing at attention.
The official CSA statement gave a brief explanation, pointing to the importance of its national team presenting a united front against racism.
"After considering all relevant issues, including the freedom of choice of players, the board had made it clear it was imperative for the team to be seen taking a stand against racism, especially given [South Africa's] history," CSA said.
"The Board's view was that while diversity can and should find expression in many facets of daily lives, this did not apply when it came to taking a stand against racism."
It's a bold statement to make. Particularly when the sentiment thrown back rightly questions the ethics behind insisting how a stand against racism should look.
Is it still meaningful and authentic if someone, in this case a cricket player, is engaging in an antiracism stance because they're being compelled to do it?
What about the ethics of mandating someone to take an action that is rooted in protesting against oppression? Does that not seem disingenuous and counterintuitive?
Further, if you're effectively instructing someone to publicly act out an antiracism stance, does that glaze over other attitudes which could exist alongside this outward-facing action?
I'll admit, when I first heard about CSA and de Kock's conflict, it was hard to decipher what was actually going on. One of the first things that sprung to mind was how it's always better to know who is "a racist". It makes digesting bigoted attitudes and behaviour a lot less complicated because you know what to expect. In this particular instance, it explained why de Kock would give up his playing spot at a world cup.
Quinton de Kock, third right, stands with teammates ahead of the Cricket Twenty20 World Cup match between South Africa and Sri Lanka in Sharjah, UAE. Photo / AP
He must be really invested in not standing against racism to forgo getting on the field, I surmised. Yikes.
Even if that's right - and De Kock has since said that it isn't but that he objected to being told how to behave on such an important issue - it's a view that doesn't advance the anti-racism agenda. Instead, it suggests a high-profile athlete like de Kock is confident enough to maintain discriminatory and outdated attitudes despite significant impacts to their career. That line of thought is pretty grim, self-defeating and increases divisiveness in its own way.
What is actually more difficult is navigating a stance like de Kock's, and creating progress from something which many people – including the player himself – believe to be right.
If de Kock isn't a racist, but simply objects to being told how he should express that, how can we get him to understand there is more at stake than his own individualism? And with the backdrop as a world cup, what is the best way forward for everyone?
Unfortunately, there are no straightforward answers. Because any action after CSA's directive - including de Kock's own decision to re-join his teammates and take a knee at the Proteas' next world cup match - was going to result in doubt around how genuine the situation was.
Here, CSA chairman Lawson Naidoo's insight helps.
"There was no suggestion whatsoever that any of the players are not committed to the fight against racism," Naidoo said in a podcast interview.
"But it's how they demonstrate that that is important, particularly, this is the second most-watched sport in the world ... [and] South Africa has a high status in international cricket and our players as leaders in that field need to take the responsibility and see their bigger responsibility towards society as a whole, and towards their teammates, and to be able to find each other - even when they may not be necessarily be fully committed to a decision but to do it in the interest of the team."
So yes, CSA's stance is technically about appearances and ensuring at face-value its players are doing the right thing. But as Naidoo said, it also pushes into the deeper issue of the responsibility around addressing racism – a conversation that will continue long after the headlines about South Africa, West Indies and de Kock age.
