[Tealeaf]

It seems to me that there is a sub-text in a number of postings on here, which reads that firstly, the sky TV cameras could see no evidence of ball tampering and that secondly, the umpires do not have the right to make an immeadiate decision in the game.

When I last looked at my Laws of Cricket book, I could find no reference to the role of TV cameras (unlike, for instance, in International Rugby Union); my interpretation was that should a team be unhappy with the umpire's decision, they could refer this to the referee off the field of play, who could in turn put the case to appeal.

Pakistan were in a dominant postion on Sunday afternoon. I am at a loss to understand why, after Mr Hair decided to penalise them for the measly total of 5 runs, they subsequently decided to deny the paying specator the continuance of the game. On Monday night, would Accrington Stanley have walked off the pitch had Forest been awarded a penalty in the 95th minute of dubious injury time? I think not.

I don't really care if the team was Pakistan; If it was Australia, India or even England my view would still have been the same - what happened was disgraceful to the game of cricket and the team should be sent home immeadiatly.