Inzamam-ul-Haq will face two charges on Friday brought by the International Cricket Council. He is accused of altering the condition of the ball and also bringing the game into disrepute by causing the abandonment of the final Test match.
Earlier yesterday, before the news of the hearing, Pakistan Board President Shahriyar Khan (a former governmental diplomat), said that while he did not criticise the umpires, "once we had seen the report of the match referee we felt that a very grave accusation had been made against our team and our country. The captain felt insulted and wanted to make a protest and then was willing to resume play.
"We felt very resentful that the captain was not informed first that something was going on."
He then hinted that any further action against Inzamam could have serious repercussions. No mention was made of the six limited overs internationals to be played, but a further refusal to play cannot be ruled out.
Friday's hearing will depend upon two factors. Although Darrell Hair has made the headlines, Billy Doctrove was also party to the on-field decision to change the ball and they will have to present conclusive proof that the condition of the ball had been altered, and explain why they did not inform Inzamam of their suspicions before they acted.
Former umpire Dickie Bird was adamant. "You have to be positive that you have seen a player or players do it," he said. "It is not good enough to base your opinion on the state of the ball; there are all sorts of reasons why a ball becomes scuffed, but you must see a player do it before you can act."
Hair will have to satisfy the hearing that he did see illegal treatment of the ball. Michael Atherton - himself no stranger to a similar charge following his infamous dust-in-the-pocket incident at Lord's against South Africa - is part of the Sky TV team and says this:
"We know that Hair looked at the ball after the dismissal of Alastair Cook. He must have been satisfied because he said and did nothing for 14 minutes before Umar Gul started what was to be the last over of the match. We have 26 cameras in operation and we cannot find anything relevant from a full examination of all of all their footage during that 14 minute period.
"The first time Hair acted was at the end of Gul's over, and only then did he speak to Inzamam. I feel he could have handled everything with more sensitivity."
An uneasy feeling persists that, with the new Asian power block becoming increasingly influential in international affairs, the fallout will be considerable if Hair does not come up with cast iron evidence.
The Pakistan team and management handled things wrongly  and that includes Bob Woolmer, who placed support of his captain over the greater good of the game.
Either Inzamam should have made his protest as soon as Hair spoke to him in the middle, or voiced his dissatisfaction to the match referee, Mike Procter, as soon as he was back in the pavilion. Pakistan could then have resumed play and hammered things out that evening.
The letter of the law was followed, but at what cost will not be known until Friday's hearing.
The law also needs amending, because Woolmer was right when he said "it can't be right that a charge like that is made by umpires who then are judge and jury before the accused has the chance to defend himself.
Unless Hair can name the accused on Friday, Inzamam will probably take a rap that is likely to include at least a two-match ban, and that could lead to an even bigger bust-up.