Is your list of arguments on each side really so evenly balanced? The concession that Hair was ’simply applying the laws of the game’ seems pretty decisive to me, whatever the nature of his character flaws and subsequent conduct. The ICC should not punish an umpire for simply applying the laws of the game, even if the law is absurd or harsh. A.P. Herbert, no slouch at law reform, pointed out that the best way to get rid of bad law is to enforce it against all comers. Hair’s no-balling of Murali, for instance, had the entirely positive result of forcing the ICC to clean up the chucking laws. The Pakistan case again clearly calls for another look at a too-simple law. If you keep bad law on the books by failing to apply it, you leave the future clouded by murky unarticulated de facto precedent, and the standing possibility of selective - and so unfair - enforcement.

All this if your concession is right. But surely most anti-Hairians would claim either that Hair wasn’t applying the laws at all, or wasn’t *simply* applying the laws (that is, he had an agenda that involved selective enforcement of the law). And to resolve that one you’d need to have a good look at Hair’s pattern of umpiring across the board - at lower levels in Oz, in internationals of every kind, etc. That’s where I wish this interminable debate would go.

” trying to blackmail your employers for $500,000, let alone labelling them racist, is just plain daft.”

Hair was trying to get some severance pay and save some face for the ICC.

They made the details of a private communication public.

It’s not blackmail, you twit.

Having the privilege of knowing Darrell Hair personally and having attended the Tribunal Hearing, I would strongly advise that before you go into print again with such manifestly uninformed comments and, in so doing, expose to ridicule your fundamental ignorance of the interpretation and application of the Laws of Cricket and umpiring generally, you should take the elementary journalistic precaution of, first, checking your facts; not least those relating to your libellous and wholly inaccurate allegation that Darrell was ..”trying to blackmail his employers for $500,000″… Utter rubbish!

Remember that on the day there were TWO umpires, both of whom were - and remain - in complete agreement as to what had happened and the course of action they should take.

You may care to ask yourself - and the ICC and PCB - three key questions that have yet to be satsifactorily answered by these two bodies:

1. Why did the Pakistan Team - under that serial transgressor of the Laws, Inzimum Al Huq - refuse to re-take the field after tea despite THREE official warnings delivered to their dressing room as the the possible consequences, until AFTER one of their officials had made a telephone call to Malcolm Speed in Dubai asking him to ORDER the umpires to change their decision?
(Note: Which Speed cravenly did (he ‘phoned Darrell Hair) and which Darrell Hair, with Billy Doctrove’s unqualified agreement, quite rightly, refused to do).

2. There is no such thing as a ‘Senior’ Umpire in a cricket match, each ranks pari-passu, so why was Darrell Hair, alone, singled out for immediate banning from the Elite Panel and not Billy Doctrove (who went on to umpire two of the subsequent Pakistan-England ODIs with the ready agreement of the Pakistan Cricket Board)?

(The excuse offered by Al Huq that the conduct of both or either umpire on the day ..’impugned and insulted the honour of the Pakistan Team”… - a number of whose players both past and present have honed and fine-tuned ball-tampering into an art-form - is just laughable!).

3. Who persuaded (’got at’?) Billy Doctrove not to appear in support of Darrell Hair at the Tribunal Hearing? Could it possibly be that someone murmured in his ear … “do you want to have a future on the ICC Panel and continue to enjoy the status of doing Test matches and ODIs? Yes? Well, then…. it be a pity if….. wouldn’t it? Surely not!

Fnally, I have to ask… Does the Board of CricInfo endorse - and actually pay you to produce - such sub-standard, poor quality, unresearched, journalism, that could leave them exposed to legal proceedings? I’d like an answer - from THEM!

If this is so, then my opinion of CricInfo will sink as low as the quality of your blog.

On the $500,000 “bribe”, my understanding is that Hair, who was clearly under pressure, asked his line manager, Doug Cowie, if it would be better for all concerned for him to resign. Cowie told Hair to consider his financial position if he did so and to put something in writing, which Hair did.

Cowie replied that the idea “may have merit” but was slapped down by Malcolm Speed, who had not been consulted. In any case, Hair had withdrawn the offer having slept on it. Speed, acting on what I feel was rather dodgy advice, then revealed the emails to the Pakistan cricket board. And when the PCB said it would publish them, Speed decided to do so first.

I can well understand Hair’s annoyance at this revealing of a private conversation. It made him look very bad. But then again he did reveal in his testimony last week that Rudi Koertzen called Pakistan “cheats” in a private telephone conversation…

By the way, Barrie, I advise you to tone it down a little. I understand your anger and agree with most of your points but you will hardly help your friend Darrell by stirring up the Pakistan camp. Best to let this all lie and hope that everyone is responsible over the next few months.

However, I should point out that this is not a Cricinfo blog, even if it is owned by a Cricinfo staffer. And in any case the post you object to was written by a guest. “Uninformed, ignorant” comments are the special preserve of bloggers, you should cherish the freedom of speech.