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?

England v Pakistan, 4th Test

I was about to comment on various things to do with this match, was considering leaving it till the end, since comments mid-game almost inevitably make you look spectacularly stupid four overs later...

But...

As the BBC put it:

...the umpires have picked up the ball and are examining it closely. They call Trevor Jesty on with the box of spare balls, and we could have a diplomatic incident here. They're changing the ball, and that can mean only one thing - the umpires think the Pakistan team have tampered with the ball.

Lordy - Inzamam's furious. To him this is tantamount to being called a cheat. A five-run penalty has been given against Pakistan, and this one's going to run and run.

It's been interesting now to listen to the reactions of various Pakistani commentators and journalists. Rameez Raja on TMS is firmly in the 'this is a disgrace, Pakistan weren't cheating' camp. The journalist interviewed by CMJ at tea (whose name I didn't catch) was much more of the 'it was a really stupid thing to do if they did' camp.

Rameez also made the comment that Inzi took it much better than some ex-captains would have. Wonder who he could mean?

And now, it appears, Pakistan are refusing to come out after the rain break. To the extent the umpires and England players have gone back in again. Still as far as I'm aware, there's been no indication from Hair and Doctrove (the umpires) as to the precise details of the transgression, and nothing from Mike Proctor the match referee.

Hair has a history of not being afraid to bite the bullet and call things he sees as against the Laws: remember Murali's being noballed by him seven times in three overs for throwing. I, personally, have no doubt that he believes he saw evidence of ball tampering, although, as yet, we have no idea whether he saw a ball that materially changed condition in a short period of time, or whether he actually saw a Pakistani player alter the condition of the ball in an illegal manner.

At the moment, the relevant Laws are:

Re: the condition of the ball:
Law 42: specifically 42.3 b and d.
Re: Pakistan not coming out:
Law 21: specifically 21.3 b.

We wait.