Current status

What we're hearing now, from Shahryar Khan, Pakistan Cricket Board chairman, is that Pakistan delayed coming out after tea as a protest, and that they were in fact willing to come out and play having registered said protest, and that the umpires, in effect, applied Law 21.3:
(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.


To be clear: Hair and Doctrove came out once, Pakistan didn't, England didn't because they were the batting side, and you by tradition come out second.... As Hair and Doctrove walk off, Inzi and the rest of his team are about to come out, but obviously don't. The umpires then, apparently, point out law 21.3, and go out again. England opt to come out. Pakistan apparently elect not to...

I can appreciate that protest from Inzi's point of view. BUT:

We have a number of Laws in the Laws of Cricket which provide for penalties for unfair play (vide Law 42, Fair and Unfair Play and Law 24.2, No Ball). We also have a very clear statement in the laws, Law 3.7, that The umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play..

Which leads me to a very simple question: if you're not willing to play in accordance with the full Laws of Cricket, and accept that the umpires are the enforcers of those Laws, what the hell are you doing on a cricket field?