Writing for Daily Telegraph , Boycott made a scathing attack on Hair for not showing any understanding how much damage he had caused in the name of cricket.
''I was amazed to watch the press conferences on TV. Darrell Hair was so bullish, even though the decision had gone against him. He was still acting as though he was not aware of what he had done.
''It astonishes me that he could sit there, with absolutely no sign of contrition, implying that he would do the same thing again.
He seems to have learnt nothing.
''If he comes back into the game and carries on in the same way, there will be more trouble,'' Boycott said.
Calling Hair as ''a big ego'', the 65-year-old former England opener said Hair was not the one who would take recourse to ''tactful diplomacy'' - which ICC chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle emphasized in his verdict.
He said the Aussie umpire's heavy-handed style has offended players, particularly Asians.
''He gets up their noses with his abrasive and abrupt style. Not surprisingly, they feel he has abused his authority.'' Boycott said Hair should have given instructions to Inzamam that they (the umpires) were not happy with the condition of ball and if any player was doing anything suspicious on the ball they should stopped doing it.
''All Hair had to do was go up to Inzamam and say: 'We're not too sure whether the ball has been tampered with, but if anybody is messing around, they had better cut it out.
We will be watching the ball carefully every over'.
''My point was that Hair never made any such instruction to Inzamam. He may be a book-learner, but he still got it wrong,'' said Boycott, who had played 108 Tests for England between 1964 and 1982.
Boycott said because of previous history of alleged use of ball-tampering techniques by Pakistanis, whenever Pakistan make the ball reverse-swing people automatically think they must have been doing something to the ball, but when England beat Australia with reverse-swing in the Ashes that was treated as fair play simply on the basis that they were white men.
He also expects change in the cricket laws in that there should be a requirement for a warning to be given, along with an explanation to the captain on the field, before any action is taken.
Another change he expected is that the umpires will not be able to award a match to one team without involving the match referee.
''At the Oval the whole thing was done and dusted in 11 minutes.
I'm sorry, but it's too big a deal for that. We don't want umpires to be allowed to play God like this ever again,'' Boycott said.