SUNDAY DEBATE: Hair controversy: Did Pakistan overreact? Yes

Dickie Bird, Former international umpire
Pakistan's gesture was merely reactionary. They certainly would not have wanted forfeiture, but what skipper Inzamam-ul Haq did or didn't do is not the real issue here.
I will not get into the ramifications of this fiasco, which has marred an otherwise fine Test series. What I feel strongly about rests solely on issues of umpiring, which is central to this debate.
A Test match is just a game, and therefore, spectators' interest is of paramount importance. No sport is played in isolation, least of all cricket, least of all in England, where public interest in the sport has enjoyed a rare revival.
Now, look at what has happened. For the first time in the 129-year history of Test cricket, a game has been forfeited. This is bizarre. The spectators that day were given short shrift; their interests totally lost in the confusion which followed.
The field umpires should have done everything possible to ensure that the game was not disrupted in any way.
If I was the senior umpire that day, I would have looked for ways to get everyone who had a direct stake, around the table to thrash out their misunderstandings and worked out an amicable settlement.
But I would have done this only after the day's play. I would not have pulled the bails off and awarded the match to England in such a tearing hurry. That's because there were lots of people in the stadium, who had paid a good amount to watch a day of cri-cket.
And that too on a working day. The people who have really suffered are the fans The umpires act according to the laws, no one can fault them for that.
But it is extremely difficult, in this day and age, to have clear proof that the condition of a ball has been altered, especially when none of the TV cameras picked up anything. There are so many advertising hoardings around the ground that a ball can easily get scuffed.
Question marks have been raised about the match referee's role. What can the ICC do? They appointed umpires and match referees and while the latter can sanction players, the authority of the umpires cannot be questioned.
I think if you have strong umpires, you don't need a match referee. If you are to have them, I wouldn't let them have the power to fine and discipline players. All charges of conspiracy in this case are fanciful.
The bottomline is that following the letter and sprit of the law is all fine, but the umpires should have tried their utmost to ensure that the game should have gone on.
As told to Partha Bhaduri