I think without any evidence,the change of ball on subjective grounds instead of objective,was uncalled for and certainly unfair. And why Inzimam didn't walk out immediately doesn't bother me at all. I think at lunch they must have had a discussion and also learnt that the umpire had no evidence whatsoever against them. It is weird that when the England bowlers were reverse swinging the ball during the Ashes, there was no alarm raised. There can be no two ways about it. Either it is fair, or it is not. There should not be any in between decisions. And I personally think reverse swing and bouncers should be allowed without any hitch. The batsman are getting too many concessions these days. No wonder we got to see 400 plus runs chased down in one ODI. Rules should not be followed so rigidly as if they are some religious doctrine. They are mere guidelines. And the enforcers have to facilitate the game and learn to make decisions from case to case. I'm referring to the removal of bails signalling the end of the Test Match, which by the rulebook technically was correct but was in sharp conflict with the interest of the sport. Just like most captains don't appeal for OUT when a batsman handles the ball to throw it back to the bowler, though by the rulebook that's out obstructing the field.
Umpire Darriel Hair in an email to his superior offered to resign in exchange for $500,000. ICC spearhead Malcolm Speed disclosed this information in a press conference earlier this evevning, and thus adding further twists to this bizzare string of events. What now??