A few days ago the ICC, cricket's governing body, met in Delhi and voted to expel Darrell Hair from ICC elite umpiring panel. It was a decision which has been lauded by a number of cricketing nations across the world except for the English and the Australians who continue to deny that there was any racial bias in Hair's umpiring.

An detailed investigation published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph revealed confidential information prepared by the ICC's umpiring bosses which showed that Hair was ranked equal-second on the ICC's elite panel – with Simon Taufel believed to be No. 1. In pure decision-making, Hair was the top-ranked umpire on the panel, making 253 of 263 correct decisions last year – a success rate of 95.5 per cent compared with 94.8 per cent for other umpires.

It  is interesting to note that the ICC umpiring body only evaluates the decisions that 'were given' and does not take into consideration those incidents that were turned down and overruled. This in itself is a major loophole that shows a major discrepancy in how ICC chooses to analyse its umpires, since during a cricket match decisions not given also weigh heavily when taking into account an outcome. But in the case of Hair, he generally has been understood to be a person who would willingly turn down a close decision and by so doing denying wicket to a team from the sub continent.

Could this be the final chapter of the saga, only to be rekindled in a few years time when he uses the publicity to plug a book?