The Pakistan team returned to the field at the request of the ICC match referee, but the game did not proceed because the umpire chose to stick to the law. Now the ICC is charging Inzy for the game abandonment as Hair chose to stick to his decision. Should not Mike Proctor be also charged for insisting that the game goes on, despite the fact that the umpires had closed it?

Throughout his 14 years of umpiring career, Darrell Hair has invited controversy with wrong decisions which he stubbornly upheld. It has been that way from his very first match, between Australia and India at Adelaide in January 1992 which was "marred by controversy over lbw decisions. Eight times Indians were given out, while all but two of their own appeals were rejected." But that was only the start of things; in 1995 Hair became embroiled in the row that made him a household name in Sri Lanka.

On the first day of the second Test between Australia and Sri Lanka at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Hair no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for chucking. This was despite the fact that Hair was at the bowler's end, rather than at square leg, from where an umpire would ordinarily study a bowler's action.

Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunga was so incensed by Hair's actions that he took his team off the pitch, although - unlike Pakistan on Sunday - they returned shortly afterwards. The other umpire that day, New Zealander Steve Dunne, had no problem with Murali's action when he was brought on from his end. Dunne also pointed out that the rules stated that any suspect action should be reported to the ICC which should rule a bowler's action legitimate or not. Hair refused to back down, despite the rules and went on to describe Murali's bowling action as "diabolical".

Prior to the Murali mayhem in Melbourne in January 1993, at Adelaide Hair was heavily criticised for his wrong decision of giving Craig McDermott out, caught behind, as Australia were denied a record-breaking win over the West Indies. At the same ground a year later, South Africa's Peter Kirsten was incensed by a series of wrong lbw decisions from Hair, eventually prompting an outburst which cost Kirsten 65% of his match fee.

Again in another incident Pakistan team were angered by Hair's decision to refer a run-out call involving captain Inzy to the third umpire, despite the skipper only being out of his ground because he was taking evasive action. In the same Test, Hair warned opener Salman Butt for running down the middle of the pitch, sent him back to the striker's end and gave him out lbw next ball. When he was appointed for the third and fourth Tests in England this summer, the Pakistan management privately expressed their disappointment and was promptly punished by Hair on the first morning of the third Test when he refused to give Kevin Pietersen out when he appeared to clearly edge a Shahid Nazir delivery to the wicketkeeper.

Hair has been guilty - at best - of stubborn intransigence, and at worst of bias against Asian players due to his superiority complex. Ranatunga after Sunday's fiasco at the Oval said, "Hair is a misfit in today's cricket because he acts in a high-handed manner whenever he officiates, his body language says everything." He should be removed immediately from the elite panel of umpires.

An elite umpire is one who records the least mistakes on the field and one who has the confidence of both the teams of being fair for the greater interest of the game. Hair falls far short of this criterion.

If Pakistan did not cheat I think it was perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to continue playing a match that had been unfairly and unreasonably brought to dispute by just one unreasonable man who is ready to let the spirit of cricket go to dogs for $ 50,000.00 for the post he holds.