A dressing-room source has revealed that Inzamam came off the field indignant and apparently still uncertain why the ball had been changed after the incident that led to the first forfeiture of a Test in history. The refusal to take the field may not have been his idea but that of Waqar Younis, the touring team’s bowling coach, or one of the other senior figures in or around the Pakistan dressing-room at the time.

Bad light had forced an early tea 18 overs after Darrell Hair, the umpire, had penalised Pakistan by awarding England five penalty runs and given them the choice of a replacement ball, having agreed with Billy Doctrove, his colleague, that the original had been illegally damaged.

The source said that Waqar, who was suspended and fined in 2000 when found guilty of changing the condition of the ball by a referee in Colombo, took Inzamam into the lavatory for a secret discussion at the start of the tea interval, from which point the situation spiralled out of control.

By the time that Inzamam was persuaded to take the players back on to the field, having failed to do so when the umpires came out after tea, the match had been awarded to England.

The hearing against Inzamam will take place at the Brit Oval, scene of the alleged offences, today and tomorrow. Ranjan Madugalle, the ICC’s chief referee, will consider testimony and written statements from witnesses, many of whom were directly involved with events that culminated in the fourth Test being awarded to the home team when Pakistan were deemed to have refused to play.

In the normal course of events, ICC hearings are held on the day of the incidents in question, without lawyers and with the referee as judge. The consequences for cricket might have been truly serious had this one been held in the immediate aftermath of the forfeiture, when various Pakistan spokesmen were hinting at a split with the rest of world cricket, even if Shaharyar Khan, the chairman of the PCB and a former High Commissioner in London, never went that far.

Much of the heat has gone out of the issue, but from the ICC’s viewpoint there is an important principle to be re-established, namely that umpires must be in control of matches. There are side issues, such as the ICC’s responsibility for appointing umpires from their elite panel whom both teams can trust to be utterly fair — the whole point of having an international and neutral panel in the first place. But if a precedent is set that a Test captain can disregard the umpires without penalty, it would be a recipe for anarchy.

The other matter that may depend on the outcome concerns the future of Hair. Having withdrawn his well-meaning but hectoring offer to retire early for $500,000 (about £265,000) in compensation for lost earnings, he has said that he is expecting to stand in the ICC Champions Trophy in India next month. Dave Richardson, the ICC’s cricket director, has withheld the details of umpiring arrangements for the tournament until after the hearing.

Whether or not to appoint Hair — a strong, fair, but in the view of many sub-continental cricketers, overbearing official — is delicate in the extreme. It has emerged that the India board has written to the ICC asking it not to appoint him.

In the presence of experienced lawyers representing Inzamam and the ICC, Madugalle will be guided on procedure by David Pannick, QC, the ICC’s legal adviser. Pakistan’s representatives will include Bob Woolmer, the coach.

Inzamam, who has been charged with offences against the ICC code of conduct on no fewer than ten occasions, is charged with two offences. The first holds that he should bear responsibility for what Hair and Doctrove deemed, under law 42, to be “changing the condition of the ball”. It is a “Level 2”-style offence in the code, punishable by a fine of between 50 and 100 per cent of his match fee and/or a ban from either one Test match or two one-day internationals.

The second charge, of bringing the game into disrepute by failing to take his team on to the field after tea when the umpires required, looks more cut and dried. If Inzamam is found guilty he faces a ban of between two and four Test matches or four to eight one-day internationals.

The question might be whether Inzamam was truly responsible, but in laying this charge the umpires made reference to the preamble to the laws that makes clear that it is the captain’s responsibility to ensure that play is conducted within the spirit of cricket as well as within its laws.

The four umpires on duty for the match — Hair, Doctrove, Peter Hartley and Trevor Jesty — as well as the strangely ineffectual match referee, Mike Procter, will be called as witnesses. So will Doug Cowie, the ICC umpires and referees manager, who negotiated with Hair on a possible release from his contract. In keeping with normal protocol, the hearing will be closed.

Explore Cricket

• Counties