Well, here's my two cents on the two issues raised in this thread.
On the new chucking procedures:
They have their flaws - with the exception of the new, more viable tolerance limits, which I think are a good thing. The problems with after-game and lab testing are well documented. Would I go back to the days when these calls were up to the on-field umpire's discretion? No, I would not. I believe that what gets lost in these discussions is an interest in empirical data and reality, and the only empirical group study that we know of at this stage suggested that the vast majority of international bowlers were transgressing existing straightening limits.
IMO, a desire to return this issue to the umpire on the field necessitates a pragmatic decision of expediency over reality that I'm not comfortable with. I'm very against careers being ruined when empirical reality may suggest that those being penalized may be transgressing equally or less than other bowlers not paid attention on this basis - or even, not transgressing at all within reasonable parameters (and these reasonable parameters must exist, or it's likely that the vast majority of international bowlers will have to be considered chuckers). I think much of the desire for a return to the old ways is a desire for certainty over truth. For an issue that seems to carry so much stigma, I'd rather go with truth.
So, as far as I'm concerned, both are highly imperfect solutions, and I can understand people's concerns regarding what happens immediately in a match situation. But what we currently IMO is a step in the right direction, and does offer the possibility of us learning more about the issue and adjusting our perceptions accordingly - and when real-time testing in match conditions is available, I believe we'll at last have a workable, reality-based fair solution, superior to all measures that have been in use up to this point (including no-ball calls by field umpires). Hopefully once this occurs, it will remove the objections (well, the rational ones, anyway) to the way this issue is handled, and we can then move on to other issues.
On technology and umpiring:
I still believe that accuracy (with the exception of a predictive technology like Hawkeye) is clearly not a rational basis for objection to slo-mo, replays, and even snickometer (which, while not perfect, still offers better tools for decision-making in general) being incorporated into the game. Time constraints may be a reasonable objection, which, along with Hawkeye's dubious reliability, is why I don't believe that LBW appeals can be decided by technology at this point. Although I'd love to see some mechanism by which umpires can clearly see the line of the stumps from wicket to wicket.
But, given that we all (and the ICC also, in their evaluation of umpires) use these technologies to guage a decision's merit (be it good or bad), I think we can all forfeit the accuracy argument as far as the measures I name above are concerned. Another oft-mentioned innovation that I would unequivically support would be the turning over of front-foot noball calls to the third umpire, as this offers obvious benefits - one in particular being the ability of the field umpire to better concentrate on what has happened once the ball has left the bowler's hand, rather than having to intensely concentrate on the crease and then re-adjust focus down the wicket.
