Mark Richardson: Forget testing, he's a chucker

There is no easy way to put this, no soft way to broach it, so here goes - Muttiah Muralitharan is throwing the ball.

I know he's been tested, re-tested, tested again and cleared. And I know, with the special makeup of his limbs to the naked eye, his action looks worse than it is.

But, for goodness sake, half of cricket is now not watched with the naked eye, thanks to the invention of super-slow-motion cameras, hot-spots, snicko and hawk-eyes.

Many of the slow-motion replays I've seen of Murali have only strengthened my conviction he is exceeding the 15 degrees bending and straightening allowance. Is it not meant to be the other way round? Isn't the hi-tech equipment meant to alleviate my fears?

I don't blame Murali for this situation. Murali can only do what he does - and what he does he does as a champion, and unlike the other great spinner of my time, Murali does it with good grace and gentlemanly conduct. I'm sure in the competitive environment all he is concerned about is outcomes.

'Where will I pitch this off spinner, fast off spinner, toppy, doosra, fast doosra?' Not 'how much degree of flex do I want to put on this one?'

Many of his deliveries may fall around the 15 degrees but, in my opinion, too many. In particular his faster deliveries appear well beyond it and since the introduction of the 15 degree allowance his action appears to have deteriorated.

The problem lies with the inappropriate way in which the ICC has decided to police throwing. A player is suspected of throwing and then, for want of a better term, tested in a laboratory.

We've all seen the pictures of Murali lit up with bulbs. To his credit he volunteered for this. Apparently he proved he wasn't a chucker.

But did he really? What he proved is that he can bowl within limitation, not that in the heat of battle he actually does.

Cricket is not played in a laboratory. On the field it matters where and how the ball gets to the other end. In a laboratory it doesn't, all that matters is how you delivered it.

Because of the way the ICC has gone about dealing with this situation, too many bowlers now appear to have suspect actions and can operate for too long before there is any reaction. Now is the time for the ICC to amend procedures to reflect how it is introducing technology.

We can use technology to access where the ball pitched, where it may be heading, how much it bounced, turned, seamed and yet we can't use it to access the most important thing - how it got there in the first place.

Surely the technology exists for the match referee or third umpire to assess, during the game, bowling actions and take appropriate action when someone is operating outside the laws of the game.