WITH the recent decision of the International Cricket Council to kick out Darryl Hair from its Elite Panel of umpires, the controversy at The Oval has come to an end, or so it seems. At least one more jigsaw has fallen into place in the puzzle. Frankly speaking, I was not expecting it to happen even though it was the most obvious thing to do after the inquiry committee’s decision in the matter. But the most obvious decision is not always taken in world affairs be it cricket or politics or anything else, and I had my doubts. It was a pleasant surprise, however, that the ICC moved along the right path and took the right decision by putting the Pakistan resolution to vote. Well done, ICC!

On another level it is a big success for the officials of Pakistan Cricket Board for having done enough and effective lobbying before the crucial vote. It was expected that Sri Lanka and Bangladesh would readily support the motion, but there were certain doubts regarding the Indian camp, as no one was quite sure what path it might take. To garner support from India is something that the PCB must feel elated about.

That was not all though. The four votes from Asia could not have clinched the deal on their own. The fact that the PCB was able to bring to their side the two African countries — South Africa and Zimbabwe — as well as the West Indies was a significant achievement which enabled Pakistan to ensure that justice was done. I was not surprised one bit with the manner of support Hair enjoyed by Australia, New Zealand and England.

Australia, we all know, is the native country for Hair and he has been receiving moral and public support from all concerned in the land Down Under ever since the fiasco at The Oval. This included expression of support from the Australian prime minister as well. So that was not surprising. New Zealand, of course, is an Australian neighbour and despite all the minor wars of words that separate the two cricketing teams, they have often been on the same side of the fence when it comes to voting within the ICC. So that was not surprising either.

As for England, the ECB just could not afford to vote against Hair because that would have surely weakened their case against Pakistan in which it wants the PCB to compensate it for the financial loss it suffered at The Oval because of Pakistan’s alleged refusal to continue with the game. The PCB has rightly taken the plea that since Hair’s basic decision of penalising Pakistan for alleged ball-tampering has been found incorrect by the ICC inquiry tribunal, the PCB is not the guilty party and, as such, there is compensation to be paid. In this backdrop, it was a technical hitch more than anything else that made England to vote against Pakistan’s resolution at the latest ICC meeting.

At another level, the three countries — Australia, New Zealand and England — have been the beneficiary of Hair’s attitude against the Asian sides. Much before the incident at The Oval, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have been registering their protest against the haughty attitude and arrogance shown by Hair against Asian sides. Even from this angle, it was only logical for the three beneficiaries to vote in favour of the culprit.

The reaction from Australia and the Australians, to say the very least, has been nauseatingly partisan. It is ironic that the Australians have chosen to talk about assumed damage to the umpiring fraternity and the supremacy of umpires over anyone else in cricket. Just as they were talking about such grandiose ideals, they forgot that their captain Rickey Ponting only recently abused an on-field umpire! Double-standards! What else?