The big news in cricket recently was Pakistan not returning to the field after tea break because Australian umpire Darrel Hair ruled ball tampering. A London mate was at the Oval test and said they are getting 40% discounts on tickets but pleased to have been part of the historic event.

The ICC seems to be trying to embarass Hair by disclosing offers to resign. Pakistan doesn't like the guy from past rulings.

Not a U.S. sport, but can any other Commonwealth people comment on how your local press is treating this? I'd especially like to hear an Austrlian or Pakistan/Indian perspective. Locally I'm reading that Hair is a biased but on the other hand, an umpire is required to call it as he sees it without regard to political effect.

Well, Tom, as you know things have moved on a bit and I, for one, am having difficulty understanding Mr Hair. Before you lop five runs off a side's score, shouldn't you at least have a word with the captains? It strikes me that this whole affair could have been avoided if Hair had just had a pow wow first rather then announcing a finding of tampering. Mind you all three umpires have some culpability there.

I doubt we'll be seeing much more of Mr Hair - but Pakistan's seizing on his alleged offer to resign for $500,000 was a clever tactical move as they could get back in to the game with honour satisfied. And as their pace bowlers seem to be tearing up England at the moment it's hardly done them harm. Which is a pity from my (English) POV.