Darrell Hair is a tall, broad, imposing Australian. He gives the impression of being someone who is mentally strong, authoritative, and defiant when put under pressure unfairly. These are all essential qualities – along with fair play and common sense – that form the basis of a reliable, trustworthy, conscientious arbiter. Having the ability to remain calm to assess a volatile situation with a clear mind is a further imperative requirement.
As a world-class Test umpire, Hair had emerged exonerated, though sometimes mentally bruised, from controversial on-field examinations, but none of them as demanding and explosive as the rumpus that erupted at The Oval cricket ground in south London on 20 August 2006.
It was late afternoon on the fourth day of the Fourth Test between England and Pakistan, with a transfixed crowd filling the vast ground and millions more watching on television. Pakistan had already registered a substantial 504 in their first innings. England had replied with just 173 in 53 overs and were now anxiously following on, and at 218-3 in 51.5 overs.
The sun shone brilliantly, the spectators were in good humour, and the cricket was attractive and meaningful. It was an idyllic Sunday afternoon of consummate relaxation, with the game itself providing the perfect backdrop. Then bang! Suddenly all hell broke loose. There are no other words that can describe adequately the chaos, tension and bitter controversy that swept through this stunned sporting arena.
Pakistan’s strapping paceman Umar Gul produced an absolutely unplayable swinging Yorker that struck England’s left-handed opener Alastair Cook painfully on the toes, smack in front of the stumps, for a certain lbw. It was exceptional reverse swing even for Gul, who had an envious reputation for getting the ball to deviate sharply and late. At the end of the over, umpire Hair asked to see the ball to check on its condition.
Obviously satisfied that it was not damaged in any way, Hair returned the ball to the Pakistan fielders, and it was safe to assume that Gul’s extra swing had come from a combination of skill and legitimate shine on one side of the ball, which can enhance a sudden swerve. Paul Collingwood then went to the middle to join Kevin Pietersen. Only 11 runs came in the next four dull overs, with Pietersen breaking the tedium, striking a boundary off leg-spinner Danish Kaneria, though even then the ball just crept over the rope at deep cover.
Collingwood collected three to get off the mark, followed by a single, and Pietersen stroked two and a single as the watchful pair realised the need to consolidate with the minimum of risk. At the end of over 55, Hair again asked to see the ball. This time there was obvious concern about its condition, which left everyone wondering how it could possibly have deteriorated so badly in just 20 minutes to cause such a fuss. After all, apart from Pietersen’s boundary blow, not a shot had been played in anger!
Should the ball be damaged in any way then it surely could not have come from being battered against the boundary boards; so was there something more sinister at work? It certainly seemed that way. Cynics and second-guessers would have concluded that a Pakistan player, or a number of them, had covertly used fingernails to dig into the ball’s surface on one side to scratch and even gouge it, while continuing to polish the other side vigorously.
For reasons known to those with expert knowledge of aerodynamics, a ball bowled over 22 yards in this condition would be far more likely to swing fast and late than one that had not been ‘worked’ on. Hair, and his genial West Indian umpiring colleague Billy Doctrove, inspected the ball carefully, turning it over and over, holding it up high, and looking particularly at its quarter seam. Players and spectators watched incredulously.
There was obvious concern, which left Hair and Doctrove with a tricky dilemma. They could ignore any damage to the ball and hope that it would not deteriorate further, or change it within the laws of the game. The umpires also had to consider whether it was possible – even probable – that the ball had been deliberately tampered with in order to acquire an unfair advantage.
Such a momentous decision could be made only if they were satisfied beyond doubt that the damage was so severe that it could not have been caused by any other means. Essentially, both umpires had to agree on whatever decision was to be made. There is no such thing as a ‘senior’ or ‘junior’ umpire, with one having more power than the other. Hair could not lead Doctrove, or the other way round.
They decided, jointly and firmly, that the ball had been tampered with, although they did not know by whom or how the damage had been achieved. That was an issue that would be investigated at the highest level some time in the future. Complying with cricket’s strict legal procedures, the umpires then changed the ball immediately, informed both batsmen of what was happening, awarded five penalty runs to England, and told the Pakistan captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, what was occurring and why.
A small box of used cricket balls was then taken to the middle where Collingwood was allowed to select the replacement. This caused Inzamam great displeasure, but the International Cricket Council’s ‘Playing Conditions’, which override the Laws of Cricket, categorically state that when a ball is deemed damaged unfairly, the opposition batsmen have the right to choose its replacement.
Still not content, Inzamam asked to see the damaged ball. The game’s fourth umpire, Trevor Jesty, a former popular England all-rounder and a highly respected international umpire for many years, readily took it from his pocket and showed it to the Pakistan captain, who calmed down and instructed his team to continue playing.
It was crucially important that Inzamam was told precisely why the ball had been changed, and that five penalty runs were being awarded to England, because both umpires had decided that the ball had been deliberately damaged to obtain an unfair advantage.
Both umpires would need to ensure that the Pakistan captain, above all others, would know every detail of what had taken place so that he could not justifiably protest later that he had told his team to continue playing when he had not been given all the relevant facts. However, Inzamam did complain later that he was not properly informed, inevitably shifting the blame to Hair and Doctrove for allegedly not telling him. But what else could all the on-field discussions – with Inzamam fully part of them – have been about?
But back to the match. Play eventually resumed after a delay of around four minutes and continued for a further 15 overs until 3.45pm, when increased cloud cover caused the light to fade, and Pietersen and Ian Bell, who was now at the wicket, accepted the umpires’ option to leave the field because of bad light. By now England had progressed to 298-4. As the stoppage came within 30 minutes of the scheduled tea break, the interval was taken immediately, with play scheduled to resume at 4.05pm.
No one, not even the laudable Mystic Meg (who used to foretell National Lottery numbers on UK television), could have predicted the unprecedented Test match scenes of drama and fury that were about to explode. Umpires Hair and Doctrove, who were pleasantly refreshed after a pot of tea and sandwiches, emerged punctually at 4.05pm to test whether the light had improved sufficiently for the match to re-start, and after a further 20-minute delay, they agreed that it could resume at 4.40pm.
Fourth umpire Trevor Jesty was asked to advise both teams of what had been decided. Loud applause greeted Hair and Doctrove as they walked onto the ground at 4.36pm and placed the bails on the stumps for the match to resume. It is normal for the fielding side to follow the umpires fairly quickly onto the ground, and then the two not-out batsmen.
But there was no sign of the Pakistan players, and their dressing-room door was firmly closed. Hair and Doctrove waited patiently for four minutes, and at 4.41pm discussed the situation earnestly, as it was becoming more and more likely that Pakistan had no intention of returning to play.
With this in mind, the umpires had to follow cricket’s precise laws for such an unusual situation. Although it was acceptable for just one umpire to consider whether Pakistan had refused to play, the laws required that both umpires had to obtain the reason for this refusal, and they jointly had to inform Inzamam, the Pakistan captain, of what was being considered. Inzamam would also have been advised that if Pakistan continued to refuse to play, then cricket’s laws would give the umpires no option but to award the match to England.
It is known that Hair and Doctrove arrived at the Pakistan dressing-room door at exactly 4.46pm, where they were met by team manager Zaheer Abbas, who was soon joined by Inzamam and team coach Bob Woolmer. Above all else, it was plain to see that Hair and Doctrove were standing solidly together on everything under discussion, which included the condition of the ball, Pakistan’s refusal to play, and every procedure needed to be taken within the laws of the game in such extraordinary circumstances.
At no stage did Hair and Doctrove enter the Pakistan dressing room, but an animated conversation was seen to be taking place near the doorway, with Inzamam having a great deal to say. There was no suggestion that Pakistan had changed their minds about wanting to play as Hair and Doctrove made their way to the England dressing room where the two not-out batsmen were padded up and ready to resume.
The umpires then returned to their private room to pick up their hats and counters, and walked straight onto the ground. It was now 4.54pm. Both England’s not-out batsmen followed them, but there was still no sign of the Pakistan team. Ironically, the only Pakistan player in view was wicketkeeper Kamran Akmal, who was calmly reading a newspaper on a seat outside the dressing room. He was not wearing his pads or gloves, and he seemed to be sending a clear message that he, at least, was going nowhere.
Around two minutes went by while Hair and Doctrove discussed the next move and, as it became known later, both agreed that, as Pakistan had rejected three requests to come out and play, they had effectively forfeited the match. Doctrove removed the bails first, Hair then did the same, and England had won. It was now 4.58pm – exactly 18 minutes after the umpires had decided that the light was good enough for play to resume.
On leaving the field, the umpires reported to match referee Mike Proctor that Pakistan had forfeited the Test, and that England had won. Proctor then left his room to inform the Pakistan team and management what had been decided, although it was never confirmed that he arrived.
What can be safely assumed is that international cricket’s high-powered administrators were frantically, even hysterically, trying to resolve the problem behind the scenes to head off potential political repercussions and all sorts of allegations from the super-sensitive Pakistani contingent.
Everyone in authority must have known that there was no scope for manoeuvre. Both umpires had ruled that the Test was over. There was no logical, or legitimate, way of altering what had been done in compliance with the laws. David Morgan, the ECB Chairman, and David Collier, the ECB Chief Executive, were soon on the scene, desperately hoping Hair and Doctrove would change their minds, as the Pakistan players were now, apparently, willing to play. Morgan and Collier could offer nothing that would enable the Test to enter its fifth day.
Shaharyar Khan, then Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, was interviewed on BBC radio at 5.42pm and said: ‘We feel that there is no evidence whatsoever of deliberate scuffing of the ball. Once you accuse a team of deliberately tampering with the ball, it becomes a very big deal. We felt we should make a protest, but we simply said that we would stay inside for a few minutes and go out when the protest had been registered. We are still hopeful that the match can start again.’
Khan did not define precisely what he meant by ‘a few minutes’, and it did not seem to reconcile with the separate requests from the umpires spread over a fairly considerable period. Some people might reasonably argue that it is understandable for high-ranking officials of governing bodies to preach the gospel of ‘the game must go on at all costs’. But it would surely be seriously wrong for any organisation to be prepared to turn a blind eye to cheating, and ignore fair and lawful decisions by the world’s best umpires in order to allow a game to continue.
Finally, at 10.35pm, a joint statement from the ICC, ECB and PCB was released confirming that they had officially agreed that Pakistan had forfeited the Test match, and that there would be no play on the fifth day. It clearly stated: ‘After lengthy negotiations which resulted in agreement between the teams, the ICC match referee, and both the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), it was concluded with regret that there will be no play on the fifth day.
‘The 4th npower Test match between England and Pakistan has, therefore, been forfeited, with the match being awarded to England. In accordance with the Laws of Cricket it was noted that the umpires had correctly deemed that Pakistan had forfeited the match, and awarded the Test to England.
‘At a meeting between the captains, ECB, PCB and ICC match referee, the players, ICC match referee and Boards indicated that they would offer to resume play if at all possible on day five. The umpires, having awarded the match to England, and having consulted with the Pakistan captain, reconfirmed their decision to award the match to England.
‘The Pakistan team was aggrieved by the award of five penalty runs to England. The award of those penalty runs for alleged interference with the ball is under review by the ICC match referee Mike Proctor, whose report will be considered in due course. The ICC will be issuing a separate report concerning action which may be taken in relation to the forfeiture of the match by Pakistan.’
It came as no surprise to learn that no other Test match over a period covering more than 1,000 games had ended in such a controversial manner. Officials at the ICC, so often castigated for their weak handling of disciplinary cases in order to protect the game’s image, again might have hoped that this embarrassing incident would fade rapidly and be forgotten.
But no such luck. This time they took on the formidable Darrell Hair, an honourable man with a reputation for relishing a fight, should it mean defending integrity, whether it happened to be his or in any way related to cricket. He later took the covers off the astonishing affair, and revealed in great detail what had taken place behind those closed doors at The Oval, and candidly suggested where he believed unnecessary problems had arisen, and who were to blame.
Hair angrily disclosed that senior officials from the ECB, along with their counterparts from the PCB, all became involved in a veritable circus, and that politics took over to such an extent that any hope of reconciliation for the match to continue was eliminated.
Fearing no one, Hair recalled: ‘We played on until tea, so I suppose you could say that by playing on, the players accepted what happened. It wasn’t until they arrived back in the dressing room that politics took over. Too many people from Pakistan and the ECB got involved.
‘I will name them all one day, probably when I write my book. There is no doubt that they got involved when they shouldn’t have done, which further inflamed the situation. The PCB thought they had some allies who would assist them. The Pakistan team had accepted the ruling until they got back to the dressing room.’
Many people high up in international cricket, as well as media commentators renowned for their sound thinking, surprisingly assumed that Hair had acted alone in the decision to change the ball, and that he never consulted his colleague Billy Doctrove. Hair was determined to put the record straight and stressed: ‘He [Doctrove] played an equal part. I’d like to see any tape of my frogmarching Billy around. There was no coercion. I’m an easy target because [my] strength of character can be mistaken for arrogance or obstinacy. But if Billy had said “I don’t think the condition of the ball had changed,” we would have carried on.’
The ECB refunded fourth-day spectators 40 per cent of their ticket price, and gave an automatic 100 per cent refund to those with tickets for the fifth day. But the PCB flatly refused an ECB request to pay £800,000 towards the lost income, although they did agree to a Twenty/20 international in England, for which their players would waive all fees.
Hair has had no personal contact with Doctrove since that unfortunate incident, although nothing has been said, or even publicly hinted, about anything in particular that has kept them apart, but with one living in Australia and the other in the Caribbean, it seems nothing more than a logistical situation. The ICC, ECB and PCB all later agreed that cricket’s laws had made it right for England to be awarded the match.
Several former prominent Test cricketers who had retired to a comfortable career in a television commentary box seized the chance to pontificate about the dispute, and the people involved. Former England captain Michael Atherton criticised Hair for not continuing the game, but completely overlooked the fact that Doctrove was an equal part of the decision.
Atherton might have found it a trifle difficult to comment on such a controversial issue, bearing in mind his ‘dust-in-the-pocket’ clash with Peter Burge, another powerful Australian umpire, in a Test match against South Africa at Lord’s in 1994. Nasser Hussain, another former England captain, sided with Inzamam, saying he would have done precisely the same as the Pakistan captain.
Former Australian skipper Steve Waugh was in no doubt that umpires Hair and Doctrove had acted correctly, saying: ‘No one is bigger than the game. The laws are there for that reason.’ Michael Holding, the former West Indian bowling legend, thought the umpires had over-reacted by applying the five-run penalty, and believed every law had room for flexibility.
It was a strange remark, coming from one of cricket’s most clear-thinking commentators. To suggest that Hair and Doctrove should have meddled with the regulations that were there for them to enforce would have amounted to law-tampering, which would have been far worse than the actual ball-tampering, which they dealt with admirably.
Former Pakistan heroes Imran Khan and Wasim Akram both fiercely attacked Hair, again forgetting that Doctrove played an equal part in every on-field decision. ICC officials later announced that Hair had offered to resign from the Elite Umpires Panel, and then leaked into the public domain a confidential e-mail that Hair had allegedly sent to Doug Cowie, the ICC’s umpire manager.
The ICC claimed the e-mail was entitled ‘The Way Forward’, and that Hair had offered to resign in return for a non-negotiable one-off payment of $500,000, to be paid directly into his bank account. It transpired a few days later that Hair had specifically asked that his offer should be kept confidential to both sides, so it was quite shameful of the ICC to do exactly the opposite by disclosing it to the world.
Hair was contracted to the ICC until March 2008, so there were virtually two years still to run on their time together. And it was with this in mind that he had quite reasonably calculated that any closure payment would compensate for loss of future earnings and retainer fees. To make it simple for everyone, Hair later withdrew his $500,000 offer, although he still maintained that it represented compensation for the four or more years that he would have gone on to umpire at the highest level if The Oval ball-tampering controversy had not come about. Hair believed that the years he expected to lose ‘would be the best he had to offer to international umpiring’.
Using all his tenacity, Hair hit back at the ICC and stated publicly that the game’s governing body had actually been in negotiations with him before he had sent that controversial e-mail. Hair stressed: ‘During an extended conversation with Mr Cowie, I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC.’ The ICC countered Hair’s recollections by insisting that Cowie had not invited such a claim, and then Hair insisted yet again that he had never considered retirement.
Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq was banned for four One-day matches at an ICC hearing for ‘bringing the game into disrepute’, but totally cleared of being involved in any alleged ball-tampering in The Oval incident. Ranjan Madugalle, who chaired the hearing, said in his report: ‘Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there is sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding team had taken action likely to interfere with the condition of the ball.’
It was a strange conclusion, bearing in mind that every ICC-appointed match official on duty at The Oval – who were Trevor Jesty, Mike Proctor, Peter Hartley, Doug Cowie, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove – had all agreed that markings on the ball indicated tampering.
Former England batting legend Geoff Boycott, well known for his penchant for disagreeing with popular opinion, thought it was a ‘good ball, not just a playable ball’. Ex-Middlesex seam bowler Simon Hughes believed that Hair – again no mention of Doctrove – had ‘guessed’, and that the ball was in a ‘pretty good condition’ when he examined it.
Of course, both Boycott and Hughes had no experience of elite-level umpiring, or of any other serious umpiring for that matter, so the intricate laws of the game, and how and when to enforce them, were not really their strongest points, so it might have been better for their credibility if they had stayed silent on this occasion. Without the essential experience, and knowledge, their comments were worthless, and impartial observers must have wondered why the ICC had considered them worthy to testify as witnesses.
Pakistan Cricket Board’s Chairman Shaharyar Khan seized on Madugalle’s muted verdict, and announced that his Board had not ruled out charging Hair – yet again no mention of Doctrove – with bringing the sport into disrepute. It was a hasty and crazy remark, and one that so easily could have ignited further international problems for Hair, and even possibly put him and his family in physical danger.
Why, oh why was Hair being singled out? Why didn’t the ICC, the whimpering mouse that it can be, not stand up on this highly sensitive occasion and defend its employee? Why did it not remind those with their heads stuck in the soil that there were two umpires on duty in that match? And in every match!
Hair and Doctrove had applied the rules correctly. They had performed their onerous duties honestly and bravely. So it was absurd – some may say outrageous – that Hair should be pilloried personally for upholding the laws of the game. Having built the bonfire and doused it with petrol, the ICC was then forced to admit that Hair was, indeed, at risk, and announced that for ‘security reasons’ he would not be umpiring at the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy.
Malcolm Speed, Chairman of the ICC, disclosed that its decision to exclude Hair for security reasons was taken after listening to ‘independent advisers’ – although he noticeably did not identify those ‘advisers’, or reveal whether specific threats had been made to harm Hair should he be allowed to officiate.
Four weeks later, on 4 November, the ICC announced that it was banning Hair from umpiring in all international matches. In a terse statement made in Mumbai, ICC President Percy Sonn said: ‘He [Darrell Hair] shall not be allowed to officiate in any future international games until the end of this contract [which was due to conclude in March 2008].’ Both Speed and Sonn added that, despite banning Hair, there was ‘no issue’ with the result of The Oval Test, which Pakistan had forfeited. Doctrove was unaffected by the ban on Hair, but again the ICC gave no explanation why he had been left off the hook.
As expected, the decision to ban Hair was greeted with jubilation by the Pakistan Cricket Board, which had earlier demanded that Hair should be sacked. Intrigue then mounted when a strong rumour took off that a ‘reliable source’ had leaked Hair’s sacking to an Indian television station 24 hours before the official ICC announcement.
This unnamed source had apparently claimed that ten Test-playing nations had voted on whether Hair should stay or go, and that India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Bangladesh and the West Indies (home of umpire Doctrove) had all voted for him to be removed, while England, Australia and New Zealand had fully supported him.
Former Pakistan batting icon Javed Miandad, many times at the centre of on-field controversies, said the ICC had set an example which meant that ‘all other umpires will be under pressure to make the right decisions’. It was a masterpiece of Miandad muddled-thinking, when taking into account that the ICC had already accepted that the ultimate result was the correct one, and the entire band of elite ICC umpires on duty at The Oval had unanimously agreed that the ball showed signs of tampering.
Former Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga also welcomed the ban. He claimed that Hair had a ‘prejudice against Asian teams’ and that he was ‘happy that he is finally out’ and that the decision ‘will do good to [sic] future cricket’. Many might contend that Ranatunga’s comments were reckless. At the very least they were distasteful, insulting and wholly out of place for a former captain of any national cricket team.
Cricket Australia understandably emphasised its full support for Hair (who was born in New South Wales in September 1952) and demanded to know from the ICC why the ban had been imposed. Its Chief Executive, James Sutherland, said: ‘Umpires need to have confidence in the system, and that they are supported by best-practice administration and processes.’ One incensed Australian journalist complained bitterly: ‘Having seen how brutally Hair was abandoned after his tough call, only a brave or foolish umpire would be courageous enough to throw himself into the lion’s den.’ There is no official record of the ICC ever responding to Cricket Australia’s request to know why Hair was fired.
In total contradiction to what the ICC had thought of Hair, a poll conducted by the Wisden Cricketer magazine in the aftermath of The Oval incident had hailed him as Umpire of the Season, having polled more than a third of the votes. Even more embarrassingly for those who had condemned Hair, a leaked ICC report showed that immediately before The Oval rumpus he was rated the second-best umpire in the world overall, and world number one for decision-making.
After thinking long and hard about all the discrediting comments made against him, Hair felt impelled to take legal action, and in February 2007 he confirmed that he was suing the ICC and the Pakistan Cricket Board for racial discrimination. Hair believed he had been made a scapegoat for The Oval debacle, especially as he was banned while colleague Doctrove escaped punishment entirely.
Leaving no one in doubt, Hair said: ‘I can confirm that I have instructed my lawyers, Finers Stephens Innocent, of Portland Street, London, to issue an application to the London Central Employment Tribunal alleging racial discrimination from the International Cricket Council and the Pakistan Cricket Board. Therefore it is inappropriate for me to make further comment, as this matter is yet to be determined by the Tribunal.’
He also poignantly added: ‘I have not spoken to anyone about this. I hope you understand that I have not released any information about this. Someone else obviously has. I have no idea who [did this] but I value confidentiality. Unfortunately I have discovered that other people do not.’
Dr Naseem Ashraf, Chairman of the PCB, responded to news that a writ was on its way, saying: ‘Mr Hair was removed from the ICC panel of umpires because of his bad umpiring and poor judgement. It is crass for him to say a black West Indian was let off [whereas] he was a white man and, therefore, he was charged. Mr Hair was the senior umpire, and he literally took over that Oval cricket match. I was there. There was only one man that evening who did not want cricket to be played. [It was] a black spot [an unfortunate choice of words] on the history of cricket, thanks to Mr Hair.’
Lots of speculation followed that the PCB, and the ICC in particular, would not wish to fight a legal battle, and that some type of compromise would be engineered to placate Hair, and persuade him to drop what seemed a strong case. So it came as no surprise when Hair withdrew his writ in October 2007, and the ICC revealed that he would be undergoing a six-month development programme aimed at placing him back in top-level matches. There was an apparent huge sigh of relief from the ICC and PCB that Hair had been pacified.
During those six months, it was decided that Hair would also be allowed to officiate in second-tier ICC associate matches, and the ICC went further in March 2008, restoring him to the Elite Umpires Panel. This was total vindication for Hair, who had battled with dignity and determination and refused to capitulate to the power brigade and slip away to a quiet life in the country.
Just three months later, on 22 August, Hair handed in his resignation to the ICC in order to take up a coaching position, ending a 16-year career as an international umpire. He stood in 78 Test matches and 135 One-day Internationals. Since breaking contractual ties with the ICC, a non-forgiving Hair has called for its current President, David Morgan, to resign over its handling of The Oval Test (thereby pitting a South Walian against a New South Walian).
His demand coincided with the ICC astonishingly changing its mind over The Oval Test result, stating that the match should now be officially recorded as a draw, and not an England victory, as previously decided in line with the laws.
With customary forthrightness, Hair responded: ‘All the board members who were involved in the earlier decision should resign now. This should also include the present ICC President David Morgan. First to go should be David Richardson [ICC general manager, cricket] and Doug Cowie [ICC manager for umpires].
‘I felt the gun was loaded by the ICC Board, and Richardson and Malcolm Speed [then Chief Executive] were only too happy to pull the trigger. They tried to destroy my life. People like me pay for standing up for what is right. I had a lot of support around the world, but unfortunately no one who worked at the ICC was among them.’
Hair’s passion for cricket began as a powerful right-arm fast-medium bowler for Mosman in the competitive Sydney Grade League. He later graduated through club cricket as a high-quality, no-nonsense umpire, and made his Test debut at Adelaide in January 1992 in the match between Australia and India, which Australia won by 38 runs.
In the only match that Hair officiated between Australia and Sri Lanka, in Melbourne in December 1995, he no-balled leg-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for an unlawful action. He genuinely believed that Muralitharan was throwing the ball, a breach of cricket laws that could get him banned from the game.
Shocked by Hair’s bold calls, and concerned about possible political repercussions, the ICC ordered an immediate biochemical investigation into Muralitharan’s unusual action, which concluded that a congenital elbow deformity was partly responsible, and this cleared him to continue playing… and to go on to become a record-breaking superstar.
But apparently not totally satisfied with this biochemical appraisal, the ICC brought in a so-called panel of ‘experts’ to conduct a further review, and subsequently raised the elbow extension limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers. This ostensibly brought Muralitharan well inside the game’s strict law and effectively slammed the door on umpires like Hair who would be brave enough to no-ball perpetrators, and by doing so endanger political unrest between cricketing nations and the ICC.
Hair is now enjoying a stress-free life as Executive Officer for the New South Wales Cricket Umpires and Scorers Association, and on his return from a recent presentation address to the Victorian Government Traffic Accident Commission in Melbourne on integrity and resilience, he e-mailed to remind me that it was ‘something very close to my heart’.
Above all else, Darrell Hair possessed unshakeable principles during his admirable umpiring career. He continually made it plain that no matter how iconic a batsman or bowler a person might be, no one should be bigger than the game itself.
Hair has encapsulated all his fine principles in his formidable autobiography In the Best Interests of the Game – The Darrell Hair Story.