1728: Who'll be next to refuse to carry on? Maybe I'll sack this all off too. Only joking - the drama is incredible. I wouldn't do that to you.
1727: They're going back in! With no sign of the umpires, the Pakistan team are returning to the pavillion. Rumours are flying around that Darrell Hair is now refusing to come out.
"What a mess! What a mess!" Jonathan Agnew, Test Match Special
1807: Those same fans are amusing themselves by constructing the longest pint-pot snake of the summer so far. It's a monster - at least three anacondas in length.
By Pakistan. Then by the umpires. Top abdicating of all responsibility and decisive action by the ICC.
Apart from chanting 'Cheat, cheat, cheat', and presumably '3-0 to the Ing-er-lund' at the Pakistan team when they did deign to take the field, probably not much fun as a spectator. Two hours with no information and no play.
Somebody emailed TMS earlier to point out that around the time the crisis unfolded, the odds against England winning dropped from an average of 50/1 to around 6/4.
Pakistan rfused to come out when the Umpires did. They done this twice, even though they say they were prepared to come out and play, they wanted to make a point.
The second time the Umpires came out, the batsman walk to the centre, no Pakistanies the Umpires took of the bails, ended the match, England win, as per the laws of Cricket.
Pakistan then deceided to come out, the Umpires basically said you've had your chance and you've already lost. I can see no way the decision can be changed, as the Umpires went by the laws of cricket.
The Umpires have to check the condition of the ball at regular intervals to ensure no tampering takes place. If they find (as in this case) that the balls condition has deteriorated more than the usual "wear and tear" that would normally happen, then they must change the ball. It seems unlikely that the batsman could have damaged it (apart from a couple of Pieterson sixes) and so a five run penalty was imposed on the fielding side (i assume this is in line with test match regulations).
So the umpires have acted by the laws of the game - after all, isn't this why we have "neutral" umpires so that no bias is seen to exist.
Seeing the ball on television tonight, there do appear to be a few 'gouges' on one side of the ball, possibly made by fingernails (or is it the old bottle top ploy?).
The umpires must be the sole arbiters of fair play - otherwise you may as well kiss cricket goodbye.
Cheating allegations are for others to decide, not the umpires. I personally hope that the ICC back the match officials and fine Pakistan. Heavily.
Latest from ICC and ECB is that Pakistan will have to take their chewing gum on to the pitch in clear plastic bags and without wrappers,and must hand the little gooey remnants to the umpire at the end of each over.
There will be no drinks breaks for the Pakistanis,though pictures of lucozade may be allowed at the Umpires' discretion.
Should Pakistan need a substitute he will be strip searched at the boundary by the umpire,who has the option of wearing marigolds for the internal inspections.
The Pakistan players must also wear leather gauntlets at all times when fielding and bowling so that those nasty long nails do not scratch the ball.
None of these regulations will apply to England,though Mr Hare has his eye on Mahmood and Panesar.