Hairy Decision 1 - Law 42.3d
In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.
After figuring out that the ball had been tampered with, Darrell(I'm-the-law")Hair did exactly what a good "stickler for the rules" would do. No complaints there. The only question that needs to be asked (and is rightly being asked) is how he arrived at the conclusion that the ball had been tampered with. You just don't call someone a cheat without knowing for sure that he has cheated - that is basic civic sense. If there was really no evidence to prove that someone had really screwed with the ball, the best option would have been to alert the captain and change the ball without awarding those penalty runs. But by awarding those 5 runs, Mr. Hair acted like a prejudiced teacher who would fail his student just because he suspected foul-play and not because he caught the student cheating red-handed. With the number of cameras on the ground these days, it really is hard for someone to tamper with the ball and go unnoticed. Even if someone pulls it off without being noticed, you just can't go call him a cheat without having proper evidence.