Shahriyar Khan, the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, had three, Ranjan Madugalle, the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) chief match referee, had one, but Darrell Hair did not have any. Lawyers. It seems the only winners in this tawdry ball-tampering saga are the legal eagles, who have been paid handsomely to pick over the bones of the unprecedented events at The Oval on August 20.

At the 90-minute news conference to announce the decisions of the ICC code-of-conduct hearing, there were as many lawyers in attendance as cricketing officials. And if Hair had chosen to bring his legal counsel John Beveridge with him, rather than appear alone, that would have brought the count to 5-4 in favour of the lawyers.

It is now clear that the laws of the game are no longer enough to police cricket at the highest level. Malcolm Speed, the ICC’s chief executive, said he hoped the “process was complete” and “we all move on and put this issue behind us”. There seems little chance of that when so many questions remain unanswered and so much resentment remains.

We have a situation in which it seems the umpire’s decision is no longer final and one country is demanding that a certain umpire never again officiates in its matches. Hair’s career is hanging by a slender thread.

The ball-tampering law seems unenforceable in its present form. Hair was the first umpire to instigate the five-run penalty against a fielding side for illegally changing the condition of the ball. It would take a phenomenally brave or foolhardy official to do the same in future. Madugalle admitted after last week’s hearing that in future “concrete evidence” would be required to make a ball-tampering charge stick. Hair also acknowledged that if a law is shown to be bad, it should be changed.

It has already happened with chucking, again as a result of actions taken by Hair when he no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan. At international level, umpires are now expected to raise concerns about a suspicious bowling action with the ICC and the bowler is then required to undertake remedial action.

Ball-tampering is an equally emotive subject, because, as Madugalle said, it is an accusation of cheating. There is nothing in the laws that says an umpire has to warn a player or team before laying a charge of ball-tampering. Common sense suggests that it would be the best policy, but umpires like Hair are sticklers for the letter of the law, hence his course of action.

It would be no surprise if the stress, scrutiny and criticism to which Hair has been subjected put off aspiring umpires. He claims that he is happy with the support he has received from his employer, the ICC, although it is hard to imagine he really believes that. The ICC hung him out to dry by publishing the e-mails in which he demanded $500,000 to resign and also by standing him down from this month’s Champions Trophy in India, citing security concerns — a claim that has been denied by the Indian cricket board.

But the question is whether the treatment of Hair has damaged the cause and status of umpires in general or whether this is one overly officious man getting his comeuppance.

Hair’s performance in front of the world media last week after the hearing was extraordinary. Choosing to appear alone, he displayed all the characteristics that have so riled Pakistan and Sri Lanka. He was brusque and defensive, but apparently revelling in the spotlight. Sports officials do not have to be like this. The best ones are not. Hair is still considered by many to be a good umpire because he is strong and decisive. Others have found him rude and insensitive. The leading umpires in world cricket are the Australian Simon Taufel and Billy Bowden, the quirky New Zealander with the bent finger. Taufel is studious and understated. Bowden seems to love the limelight and to court publicity with his antics. Yet both are sensitive and sensible. They engage with the players and react to the mood of the moment.

Madugalle’s conclusion to his verdict on the code-of-conduct hearing was damning in its assessment of Hair’s and Billy Doctrove’s handling of the situation at The Oval. He said “player-management and effective communication” were vital parts of umpiring. If a similar situation occurred again, “the umpires should do everything possible to try to defuse tensions” and to “ensure the resumption of play”.

And what of the match referee in all this? Mike Procter gave evidence at the hearing, but has been conspicuous by his absence from the fall-out. According to Madugalle’s verdict, Procter tried but failed to get the match restarted because of the umpires’ intransigence. The ICC must establish once and for all the role and remit of match referees, otherwise it is pointless having them.

Malcolm Speed may want to move on, but there are still plenty of loose ends to be tied up by the ICC — and its team of lawyers.

John Stern is editor of The Wisden Cricketer