Darrell Hair: more vulnerable than George Bush © Getty Images Enlarge

Privately, the ICC were annoyed he had gone public and seemingly put them on the spot. A week ago, it said that an announcement of those appointed for the tournament was imminent. When the days went on and no such list was issued, it started to become obvious that Hair would not be travelling to India.

Cricinfo is aware that there has been considerable discussion and disagreement within the ICC in recent days over whether Hair should stand, but news that the Indian authorities had admitted they could not guarantee protection to him was all a bit sudden and convenient.

It raised two scenarios. The first was that the Indian authorities, who in the last year have had no worries keeping Pervez Musharraf, George Bush and Tony Blair safe, genuinely could not protect an umpire. That was clearly nonsense ... but if it had been true, then it would raise massive concerns about the well-being of other players, officials and spectators. Yes, heads of state are slightly different from ICC officials, but this is a global event and given that, the government as well as the board would pull out all the stops to ensure that all bases were covered.

The other was that this was nothing more than a face-saving exercise. Given that no mention had been made of possible security issues until today, that seemed the more plausible explanation.

The simple and honest solution would have been for the ICC to leave him off their list of appointees and explain that while he remained on their elite panel, it was not felt advisable in current climate for him to be there - and to have done that early. Instead, the lack of comment while the issue was debated in Dubai helped no-one, especially Hair himself.

So we have been presented with another fudge that few believe. Yet again, a short-term cure has created a bigger long-term headache.