Richard Boock: Hair risks all with judge-jury-executioner display

There are two distinct lines of thought on the dramatic scenes played out in south London yesterday, and both lead directly to hard-nosed Australian umpire Darrell Hair.

The man who called Pakistan's bluff in spectacular fashion during the fourth test at the Oval is probably the only umpire in the world who is prepared to put his career on the line for the sake of a basic principle.

And there's little doubt that his career now hangs in the balance.

In deciding, during yesterday's action against England, that the quarter seam of the ball had been illegally raised, that a replacement was required and that the Pakistan side should be penalised five runs, Hair's judge-jury-and-executioner role is now set to come under extraordinary scrutiny.

If he had caught a perpetrator red-handed, fine. If television replays had backed up his decision with damming footage, so be it. If the ball in question could talk and attend a disciplinary hearing, even better.

But in blowing his whistle on a crime without being able to find a villain, the world's most controversial umpire has left himself open to yet another broadside, and could risk losing his place on the elite panel.

It could be, of course, that the condition of the ball is explanation enough, and that no further inquiries are necessary. The discovery of a Pakistani fingernail or a Tetleys bottle top lodged in the seam would likely put the matter to rest.

But match balls are notoriously difficult to read in retrospect. What one man views as signs of ball tampering could easily be a couple of knocks against a concrete stand, followed by an over from someone bowling with a scrambled seam.

Granted, there will be those who believe the decision should be for the match officials alone, but the problem is not quite as simple as that as the International Cricket Council discovered with the issue of throwing.

The bottom line is that a decision that might lead to player suspensions or sanctions, must be able to withstand the scrutiny of the court process.

To this end, Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan almost single-handedly caused a relaxation of the throwing law after threatening to take the ICC to court, where his counsel could have shown, with the assistance of technology, that all bowlers chuck.

Common sense dictates that the same guidelines will apply to allegations of ball tampering; that any decisions made by umpires in regard to altering the ball's condition, must be able to stand up in a court of law.

And that's difficult if there's no evidence.

The second part of equation involves the Pakistan reaction to the umpires' decision, an area where the tourists let down themselves and the game badly, to the extent that the ICC could yet decide to issue penalties.

These could start with recouping the estimated $1.6 million in gate-takings from the Pakistan Cricket Board, suspending and fining captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, and bringing further code of conduct charges against coach Bob Woolmer.

Woolmer was banned as a player after touring South Africa in the early 1980s, and was the coach in charge of the Proteas during the Hansie Cronje match fixing scandals.

His arrogance is perhaps overshadowed only by a conviction in his own opinions, and a belief that his version of events should carry more weight than anyone else's.

On this occasion, however, he appears to have been trumped by Hair.