Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland proposed that the game's protracted and bitter pay dispute go to arbitration if not resolved this weekend, then Sutherland the old fast bowler smiled thinly as he added: "In cricket parlance, we're prepared to accept the umpire's decision."
Taking our cue from him, it could be said that Cricket Australia had been on the back foot, head half-averted, the ball rearing. The pressure was on. The crowd was baying; "crowd" for our purposes can be seen to include fans, commercial partners and the boards of England, India and even Bangladesh, also fast-elapsing time. Fans, as far as could be ascertained, sympathised with the players, if only because they were players.
So CA decided to hook. Compulsive hookers have an unhappy history in Australia – think Kim Hughes, Andrew Hilditch – but this was much more premeditated. CA was backing its resources, its connections and its networks - its heft - to get this job done, and in a fell blow. It might get nothing. It might get everything, a maximum. If it did not, at least it would have been seen to be trying to force the pace rather than ducking, and besides, it had the umpire's impartial decision as an alibi.
This was not mediation, as proposed by the players in May, and rejected by CA, and resurrected by the players on Thursday evening. This was arbitration, decision final, no correspondence entered into, nor recourse to DRS.
There's no doubt that this has been a testy and draining match on a difficult pitch. Sutherland, a veteran in this form of the contest, said they had always been spirited, but never intractable like this.
On Thursday, Sutherland accused the ACA of deliberately stalling negotiations, slowing the over rate if you like, playing on CA's nerve. The ACA had thrown up one or two deliveries – $30million for grassroots, for instance – but CA picked them for wrong-uns that would actually worsen cricket's wellbeing, said Sutherland. They went through to the keeper.
There had been other offerings, all patted back down the pitch. Perhaps the ACA had expected its latest delivery, a draft heads of agreement, also to to meet a dead bat, or no bat at all. Certainly, CA's off-the-face, in-your-face shot took the players body by surprise, as evidenced by their "yes, no, wait" reaction late on Thursday. Was this desperation? Was it inspiration?
It doesn't matter now. The ball's in the air, and out of anyone's hands. CA fancies it has flushed it out of the middle; the ACA might divine a hint of top edge. All eyes turn to fine leg. Among those circling is Greg Combet, who has played this game before.
Soon, all eyes would be on the umpire, except that he hasn't been appointed yet (funny game, cricket). Perhaps a retired judge, says CA? Doubtlessly, the ACA would prefer someone from the Fair Work commission, but it rarely interferes in sporting contretemps.
But there, the action freezes. On Thursday evening, the ACA said it didn't want to play the game this quasi-judicial way, with its possibility of an unsatisfactory and peremptory end. It preferred mediation to arbitration.
CA says that if not this way, they will have to rewind to yet more tit for tat, more posturing, more rhetoric, and the over rate will dwindle, and the crowd's slow hand-clapping will grow, and some will stalk out, and it will be stumps on approximately day 233, counting from when talks first broke down, and still we will be no closer to a deal to play some real cricket, which in case you have forgotten is what this is supposed to be all about.