Boycott, now a respected media commentator, also took a swipe at Hair over his failure to show any contrition after the International Cricket Council overruled his decision to call Pakistan captain Inzamamul Haq for ball tampering.

Inzamam was cleared of the charges on Thursday after a disciplinary hearing at which Boycott, along with television analyst Simon Hughes, was asked to examine the ball Hair and fellow umpire Billy Doctrove had deemed to have been interfered with.

Both experts testified that the condition of the ball was as consistent with normal wear and tear as deliberate scuffing.

The umpires' decision to impose a five-run penalty prompted the Pakistanis to refuse to play, a protest which caused them to forfeit the match.

Hughes said on Friday that he believed Hair had been "guessing" as to the condition of the ball, but Boycott went much further in his column in the Daily Telegraph.

"Hair is the first man to apply the five-run penalty for ball-tampering and he got it wrong," Boycott wrote. "He is also the first man to call a Test match forfeited, and I believe he got that wrong too."

Boycott said Hair should have shown greater humility after Thursday's ICC ruling.

"Darrell Hair was so bullish, even though the decision had gone against him. He was still acting as though he was not aware of what he'd done," Boycott wrote.

"It astonishes me that he could sit there, with absolutely no sign of contrition, implying that he would do the same thing again. He seems to have learnt nothing.

"We are all told when we start cricket as youngsters that the umpire's decision is final.

"We all accept being given caught behind when we haven't nicked it, or lbw when the ball would have missed leg stump. But this is bigger than that - this is huge.

"It shows that the umpire is not always right. If he is going to make a huge decision, which affects the whole fabric of the game, he had better have some evidence to back it up.

"Hair doesn't understand that his man-management is just not up to scratch.

"He has studied the rules of cricket, and insists on his right to interpret them as he sees fit, whether there's anyone to back him up or not.

"All Hair had to do was go up to Inzamam and say, 'We're not too sure whether the ball has been tampered with, but if anybody is messing around, they had better cut it out. We will be watching the ball carefully every over'.

"That is what most former players would have done in Hair's position. If he comes back into the game, and carries on in the same way, there will be more trouble."

Boycott went on to say that he expected the fiasco at the Oval to result in a change in the laws with any ball-tampering penalty being preceded by a warning to the bowling side.

"Another change I expect to see is that the umpires will not be able to award the match to one team without involving the match referee," he added.

"At The Oval, the whole thing was done and dusted in 11 minutes. I'm sorry, but it's too big a deal for that. We don't want umpires to be allowed to play God like this ever again."