Eyes of the cricket world on The Oval again

The International Cricket Council's (ICC) tribunal will look into the ball-tampering allegations made against the Pakistan team by the match umpires and also into the team's failure to take the field - a protest which led to their forfeiture of the match.

It is the Pakistan captain Inzaman-Al-Haq and the Australian umpire Darrell Hair who will be the main focus of attention. Inzy is accountable if ball tampering is proved, not because he was personally responsible - nor that he even knew it was going on - but because it happened on his watch.

Hair was clearly the prime mover both in the decision to penalise the Pakistanis for unfair play and also in the decision to bring and end to the match (and award it to England) when the Pakistan team failed to take the field.

The "Ovalgate" affair has not been cricket's finest hour. From their country's President General Pervez Musharraf down Pakistanis have been incensed by what happened at The Oval - events that they clearly see as being an insult to their nation. They believe, without, it has to be said, a shred of evidence - that Darrel Hair is motivated by racism and a dislike of Asian teams. The Oval hearings will show whether all this injured pride is just bluff and bluster - a case of "protesting too much" - or whether Mr Hair can be shown to have been prejudiced in some way.

The key piece of evidence is, of course, the ball which was 56 overs old when the incident occurred. It was clearly damaged but those who defend Pakistan suggest that this damage could have come from normal wear and tear (contact with boundary boards for example) not from any action by the fielders.

At the time reporters said that a quarter-seam on the ball had lifted and, if this is true, it is improbable that this came from anything other than deliberate tampering. The umpires obviously thought so at the time. To prove the case is difficult if not impossible (in the absence of a confession -which won't happen)! In the circumstances it may be the old Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" which is applied and Pakistan will escape censure.

Pakistan's decision not to take the field of play as a protest is a clearer matter and it is difficult to see the tribunal coming to any conclusion other than that the action of Inzaman and his team brought cricket into disrepute. The penalty against Inzy may be quite mild both because he clearly was in an extremely difficult position at the time -reacting to what he insists were false accusations- and because he is a man of genuine stature in the game and liked by all.

There is a lot of cricket around the corner with the "ICC Champions Trophy" next month in India and a busy winter ahead for all the teams, culminating in the World Cup in March and April 2007. All cricket lovers will hope that the hearing in London this week draws a line under "Ovalgate" and that we can all soon move away from the acrimony and rancour that sullied that Test match and its aftermath.