BY ANDI THORNHILL

THE INTERNATIONAL CRICKET CONFERENCE (ICC) should raise the dreaded index finger in the case of elite panel umpire Darrell Hair.

Before the recent revelations regarding his offer to quit international umpiring for a healthy financial settlement, several of the international players had apparently lost confidence in Hair's ability to do a good job in the middle.

I think that in light of what has happened, it is very likely that there will be even less respect coming his way if he is allowed to continue to function in his current position.

Of course, Hair has not broken any law, but the circumstances surrounding what he did could bring the question of trust into focus.

While it is true that people vested with the authority of umpires are not in a popularity contest, it helps to make the job a whole lot easier if there is mutual respect between those who have to pass judgement and those who have to be judged.

The working environment is such that it helps to reduce a lot of the tension especially when controversial decisions have to be given. Clearly, the litany of confrontations Hair has had with players, could be some guide that there appears never to be any room for compromise between him and the alleged wounded parties.

I don't think you should or can fault an umpire if he applies the rules correctly, according to the laws and regulations of the game.

However, if there are obvious instances where this tenet can be questioned, it can lead to bad blood between umpire and the alleged victim. It would appear that the ball-tampering claim by Hair against Pakistani captain Inzamam-Ul-Haq falls into this context.

Not even television replays showing the time the alleged tampering was supposed to have been committed supported Hair's suspicions. As far as I know if you are accusing someone of doing something wrong the onus should be on you to prove your case otherwise that case should be thrown out.

Mind you, there have been other cases of ball tampering that were proven and the accused dealt with according to the rules laid down for such ungentlemanly conduct.

Sea of emotion

The mere fact that this latest one was not, the Pakistanis had every right to question it. I did not agree that they should have stayed off the field, leading to the forfeiture of the Test against England. Lodging a written protest and dealing with the fundamental issue at the end of the match might have been the way to go.

Both sides were swept away in a sea of emotion especially because the two had not always seen eye
to eye in the past. It is extremely difficult to cool passions in those circumstances when there is mistrust on both sides even before a ball is bowled. It just takes an incident for those ill feelings to boil over.

Hair, as this recent incident proves, was not prepared to change his stance even though the evidence is stacked against him.

His assertion that he made his offer to the ICC to bring an amicable closure to the issue might now be seen by some as a concession that he was wrong after all and he was looking for a way out through the back door.

His way out was not acceptable as he requested secrecy in trying to negotiate a deal with the ICC.

That the same ICC made the documents public suggest that they were not prepared to entertain him. Public disclosure seemed to indicate that they wanted to distance themselves from any proposed secret deal with Hair.

Is it possible that by the time Malcolm Speed came public the contents of Hair's email to the ICC had already been leaked to the media and would have been exposed anyhow? The point is that there was no cover up.

Since the ICC was forthcoming in this instance, I think they must have the backbone to remove Hair from the elite panel as soon as possible. If he was that keen to give up his job, I believe his bosses can release him before his contract ends for a lot less than what he was proposing.

And we would not need a third umpire or a match referee for that.