If you'd expected much otherwise you're naive and obviously don’t understand the ostrich nature of the ICC. Head-in-the-sand is just the way the Great Cricket Governing Body likes it. It’s their comfort zone; their little bubble to the world. They prefer to come up with short-term cosmetic solutions rather than tackling the issue at hand to be able to bury it for good.

Hence, although Inzimam’s vindication lies in the ruling given by Madugalle yesterday, the same ruling and the ICC’s flip-flopping and evasion of the Hair-y situation will mean that they will be faced with a decision on the choice of umpires at every instance. If the ICC had focused on clearing out the situation with Hair’s standing, in matches and as an umpire, the entire cricketing world would have been better off. Now, with India suggesting that it won’t be able to provide security for the controversial ump, the ICC have found a temp fix to the problem. Just the way they like it.

Meanwhile, Hair repeatedly goes on in front of cameras and insists that he wants to continue officiating and will resume his duties soon. The ICC delayed announcing the list of officials for the Champions Trophy and Hair told reporters that he was scheduled to officiate. Then the ICC had to come up with an excuse for not sending him. The Indian “security concern” is just the cop-out they needed.

Madugalle’s ruling, the text of which is available here at Cricinfo, barely refrains from blaming the officials, specifically Hair, for Ovalgate. While Inzimam and Pakistan are cleared of ball tampering charges, the ruling does point out the haste with which the umpires acted. It also takes notice of the difference of opinion between the umpires before the on-field decision was taken. Which, implicitly, puts the blame squarely at the Great Walking Double-Chin.

The complete decision also, rightly, holds Inzimam responsible for the disrepute charge and reprimands him for his behaviour. Madugalle’s decision that being called cheaters does not justify showing dissent and delaying the proceedings—negating the idea that being cleared of one offence necessarily nullifies the other—takes into consideration all the factors that led to the fiasco at the Oval. The one thing it lacks, since the proceedings called for judgment on Inzimam only, is a finger-pointing at the persons responsible for communicating between the concerned parties in the matter. Madugalle does say, “The witnesses agreed in evidence that player-management and effective communication is an important aspect of umpiring at international level. In my judgment, a difficult and sensitive situation such as that which arose in the present case (a finding of ball-tampering causing a substantial sense of grievance in, and protests from, the Pakistan team) requires handling with tactful diplomacy (as well as firm adherence to the Laws).”

This entire situation is a result of poor communication, between management, official, the ICC and everyone else is the whole wide world. It could easily have been avoided if all concerned decided to talk to each other. As happy as I am with the vindication of Inzimam and Pakistan, this problem is far from over because no South Asian country will be willing to let Hair officiate their matches. The ICC needs to step up and deal with this.