The fuss over James Kirtley's suspect action has again highlighted the International Cricket Council's ability to handle sensitive issues with all the tact and diplomacy of Basil Fawlty. A year ago Kirtley undertook a series of biomechanical tests at Brighton University. The analysis proved, according to Sussex coach Peter Moores, that his action was "legitimate beyond any doubt".

But now the ICC has been forced to instigate its own investigation thanks to the misgivings of match referee Colonel Naushad Ali. Though Kirtley was cleared by the ECB on the back of those tests at Brighton, they cut no ice with the ICC. Should they therefore have been good enough for the England and Wales Cricket Board?

"It's one person's opinion and a situation I've been through before," Kirtley said, and that is the crux of the problem. One man's throw is another man's effort ball. The umpires have not called him or expressed any concern, and nobody in the Zimbabwe team has complained. So why should Kirtley have mud thrown at him when only one man has any doubt about his action? You are messing with his career, Colonel.

Kirtley is unlikely to face serious problems (the five bowlers reported this year, including Shoaib Akhtar and Shahid Afridi, have all been cleared to carry on after submitting a report within a six-week period) but there is no mud in cricket stickier than that thrown at a so-called chucker. If a teacher suspected a pupil of plagiarism, he would not say as much in front of his class until it was proven.

Yet the ICC felt it appropriate to show Kirtley up in front of his peers, a move which served no purpose apart from to embarrass a young man on his first international tour and to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of umpires who had previously seen nothing wrong.

The problem is the system, which though amended at the start of the year remains terribly wishy-washy. Kirtley was reported last year and subsequently cleared. He has been reported again and will almost certainly be cleared. Where does the cycle end? What's to stop Kirtley being cited again if he comes across the Colonel on his travels?

The Colonel's shoddy performance has certainly not helped matters. He made a name for himself by sharing his views with a tabloid newspaper when he should have been quietly expressing them to the ICC. Having done that he had no choice but to report Kirtley. To not do so would have made him look even more foolish.

At least some help is at hand. An elite panel of five match referees will take charge of all international matches from next April. It's a change which can't come soon enough.

Rob Smyth is a staff writer at Wisden.com.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd