For the record, going by the laws of the game I can understand that IF there leaves no room for discretion on the umpires behalf, then they had to go off, even if with one over to go. Playing devil's advocate and all.
My major gripe is with the 30 minute break in particular, although if there IS room for discretion (and I don't think there is, correct me if I'm wrong) by the umpire regarding whether to come off or stay on if there is 1 over left, as opposed to 2 or 5, then they should have used this discretion. I understand the slippery slope argument (if 1 over left, what about 1.3? What about 2.3? etc.), however, again I stress, IF THERE IS discretion allowed via the laws of the game, the umpires should have used it IMO.
If there isn't discretion allowed, then it should be to save the game from farces like this. Cricket is the only major game (baseball too?) where mere drizzle can send the players off. When you're dealing with millions of dollars, both relying on the results and on ticket sales/viewers, this **** can't go on.
But as I said, my biggest gripe is the 30 min interval. If apparently it was raining during that interval, well fair enough then, but was it raining the whole 30 mins? 10 minute break should have been minimum, and then ONCE it stopped raining after those 10 mins, play should ahve started immediately.