Sri Lankans closely watched the proceedings of the International Cricket Council (ICC) inquiry in London into the conduct of Pakistan’s captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq for more than one reason. Firstly, our own Ranjan Madugalle, a former Sri Lanka captain and a respected cricketing personality, was chairing the inquiry panel as the ICC’s chief match referee. This panel was not only judging the conduct of Pakistani captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, but was also deciding whether the ruling of umpires Darrel Hair and Billy Doctrove that the Pakistan side had tampered with the ball at an Oval Test against England last August was correct.

Hair, of course, has become something of a hate figure in this part of the world. He has been a controversial umpire who Imran Khan once brilliantly called an ``umipring fundamentalist’’ adding that ``such characters court controversy.’’ There is no doubt that a vast majority of cricket lovers here are happy that the Madugalle-headed inquiry cleared Pakistan of the ball tampering charge although the team’s refusal to play following the Hair – Doctrove ruling was faulted. The light punishment of a four one-day match ban, which Inzamam himself has noted was the ``minimum possible suspension’’ speaks eloquently of the panel’s own view of the degree of culpability.

That is one side of the picture. But what about the flip side – if there was no ball tampering which provoked the whole unhappy incident, what’s going to happen to the umpires who found otherwise? In the view of the experts, the condition of the ball was consonant with the fact that it had been used on a rough pitch for more than fifty overs. The angry reaction of the Pakistani team was nothing more than injured innocence. They, after all, had been in effect called cheats because that surely is what they would have been had they really tampered with the ball. The big question is what is going to happen to Hair now. In fairness to cricket and its millions of fans in the subcontinent, Mr. Darrel Bruce Hair must be shown the door.

The Indian Cricket Council wrote to the ICC last week saying that Hair, embroiled as he is in controversy and media attention, must not stand at the forthcoming Champions Trophy. He has rightly been ruled out of that tournament. But that must not be the end of the story. Given that an ICC inquiry has found that he had patently made a wrong decision, and also in the context of his demand of a non-negotiable US $ 500,000 one-off payment in return for his resignation from the ICC’s elite Umpire Panel, there is too much smelly stuff on his white coat now to permit him to continue as a first class cricket umpire.

The fact that Hair tried to work out an advantageous deal for himself to step down from the ICC’s Umpire’s Panel is by itself testimony of admission on his part that it would be difficult for him to continue umpiring in international games considering the dust he has raised not only in this instance but also in the case of Muttiah Muralitharan. Sri Lankans have not, and will not forget his calling Murali for alleged throwing seven times in three overs. What did the respected Wisden have to say of that? ``Unusually, he made his judgment from the bowler’s end, and several minutes passed before the crowd realized that Muralitharan’s elbow, rather than his foot was at fault.’’ (Wisden 1997 edition pages 1,129-30). Arjuna Ranatunga responded by leading his team off the field. When they returned, Ranatunga switched Murali to the other end where he was not called by either Hair or his colleague, Steve Dunne of New Zealand.

It is not yet clear whether Inzamam will appeal against the ICC panel’s ruling as he is entitled to do. He is on record telling a television station that he did not think that the Pakistani’s would appeal given the fact that the penalty imposed was the minimum possible. But that, of course, will be a decision that will have to be taken in consultation with the Pakistan Cricket Board. The skipper will be happy that not only cricket fans in Pakistan, his own board and fans in many other parts of the cricket playing world stood solidly by him. When Hair demanded big money to step down, compensating the loss of future earnings and retainers, he asked that the payment be made direct to his bank account and both sides keep it confidential. All that smacks of non-transparency and, indeed, sleaze. His contract runs till 2008. It will be unfair of the ICC which has neither said that Hair will stay or he must go, to continue with him up until even the World Cup next year given the judgment of its own inquiry panel.

Hair has since withdrawn his demand for money to step down. He claims that the ICC was negotiating with him prior to his nominating the figure which he did at the invitation of a named ICC official. That has been denied by ICC. All this implies that either the man or the ICC itself is untrustworthy. ICC’s own interest therefore requires that Hair must go.