The more serious charge for teams like England and Australia would be bringing the game into disrepute: getting a slap on the wrist and five run penalty for affecting the condition of the ball would be met with a "fair enough, guv" and few would get any more wound up about it than they would about the side fielding a player like Pratt as a substitute fielder.

I do think the Pakistan case is different. Cricketing sensitivities in this area are high due in part to a unique history of cricketing allegations associated with Wasim, Waqar and reverse swing. That's not the biggest deal though: many Pakistanis appear acutely suspicious of the motives of any criticism in any walk of life, perhaps fearing (in may cases rightly) that prejudice lies behind anything said / done... and perhaps conscious that any allegation (whether well founded or not) has ramifications in terms of bolstering prejudice.

In this case, the ball tampering charge has been taken as impugning the honour of an individual, a team and a nation. Pakistanis may be divided over how Inzi should have handled the matter but most seem agreed that outrage was the right response and many (including the Pakistan Cricket Board) seem quite clear that the charge is so serious that forfeiting a match and having a captain suspended for bringing the game into disrepute is neither here nor there.

Upshot? I'm not going to vote: I want to vote both ways!