Faf Du Plessis won't reconsider appeal even after being handed full-time captaincy

It’s been a turbulent week for South Africa’s newly-appointed Test captain Faf Du Plessis. First came the joy of being appointed full-time skipper of the Proteas, albeit in an odd fashion after AB De Villiers stepped down. But that was followed by the reality of his pending appeal against the ball-tampering charge he incurred during the second Test at Hobart, earlier in November.

Having been given the responsibility of being the full-time skipper of the Proteas, Faf had to make a decision whether to maintain his appeal against the judgment that found him guilty in the ball-tampering incident – given the fact that if found guilty in his next hearing, set for 19^th December, his appeal could cost him dear as he could be he fined further.

If he is given a match ban, he would miss the Boxing Day Test against Sri Lanka. But the 32-year-old right-handed batsman is innocent in his eyes, and is more determined than ever to fight the verdict.

When asked whether the burden of captaincy would force him to reconsider his appeal, he said, "No. It sounds like the logical thing to do, but purely from a non-cricket point of view, I didn't agree with how it happened and unfolded, and even how the hearing took place and how everything works when it comes to a hearing.

Even if it meant the decision came out the way that I didn't want it to, for me it's about standing up to a principle which you don't agree with, and that's what a captain is all about - making sure you stand your ground and fight for whatever the cause is."

Du Plessis was charged with ball-tampering as he was caught shining the ball with a mint in his mouth. This incident sparked a media frenzy, and ball-tampering suddenly became a hot topic again.

Only a couple of weeks later, a British tabloid alleged that Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli was guilty of a similar tampering incident. Kohli was immediately cleared but it did beg the question of whether the law is clear enough in this regard.

Du Plessis argues that while he did indeed have a mint in his mouth during the time of shining the ball with his saliva, when other players shine the ball, they too have sugar present from mints or drinks that they might have consumed at an earlier point in time.

Whether Du Plessis can convince the court on the 19^th of December will determine whether he will lead his side out in his first match as full-time skipper or whether he would have to go through the ignominy of missing the match.