Hair insists ICC made him offer to resign

BRISTOL – Australian umpire Darrell Hair has insisted he was “invited” by the International Cricket Council (ICC) to make his controversial US$500 000 resignation offer.

Differences in his version of events and that of the world governing body have become apparent, and Hair said e-mail exchanges between him and the ICC support his claim. Hair, who later rescinded his offer, was one of two umpires officiating in the fourth and final Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval on August 20.He awarded the home side five penalty runs because they believed the tourists had illegally tampered with the ball.Pakistan were incensed by the decision and refused to return to the pitch after the tea interval on the fourth day.The match was eventually forfeited and England took the series 3-0.Senior figures within the ICC have maintained they were completely unaware of Hair’s offer until they saw the first of his e-mails on the subject to umpires’ and referees’ manager Doug Cowie.Hair, who had already spoken out to say his first email to Cowie “was not a spur-of-the-moment thing”, has issued a subsequent statement through his lawyers – intended to “address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC”.It reads: “I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25.”During an extended conversation on August 21 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.Since disclosing Hair’s offer on Friday, the ICC have been at pains to stress that no-one at the global governing body other than former New Zealand umpire Cowie – and certainly not anyone of the standing of chief executive Malcolm Speed – was aware of the official’s intentions until viewing the e-mail correspondence.Nampa-AFPHair, who later rescinded his offer, was one of two umpires officiating in the fourth and final Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval on August 20.He awarded the home side five penalty runs because they believed the tourists had illegally tampered with the ball.Pakistan were incensed by the decision and refused to return to the pitch after the tea interval on the fourth day.The match was eventually forfeited and England took the series 3-0.Senior figures within the ICC have maintained they were completely unaware of Hair’s offer until they saw the first of his e-mails on the subject to umpires’ and referees’ manager Doug Cowie.Hair, who had already spoken out to say his first email to Cowie “was not a spur-of-the-moment thing”, has issued a subsequent statement through his lawyers – intended to “address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC”.It reads: “I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25.”During an extended conversation on August 21 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.Since disclosing Hair’s offer on Friday, the ICC have been at pains to stress that no-one at the global governing body other than former New Zealand umpire Cowie – and certainly not anyone of the standing of chief executive Malcolm Speed – was aware of the official’s intentions until viewing the e-mail correspondence.Nampa-AFP