Right, that's essentially the problem I have with the current laws. Frankly, I don't care what precise degree of flexion X or Y bowler has when tested in a lab situation or even in a match. The chucking laws, much like a lot of the other subjective, interpretive laws in cricket, have to be designed in such a way that they can be enforced by an on-field umpire.
For instance, in LBW decisions, the umpire is sometimes called on to decide whether or not the batsman "attempted to play the ball". That's clearly a subjective call and cannot be proven by any sort of scientific analysis, yet umpires make it in basically every match. Chucking should be treated in the same way. As it is, it is a joke of a law, and utterly unenforcable. No bowler will EVER be called for chucking, no matter how blatant, until the law is changed, and bowlers that do chuck even under the letter of the current law will be able to do so and influence matches. Witness England losing a test to Pakistan, heavily influenced by a bowler later decided to have been cheating in that match. How are England to be compensated for the umpire's inability to enforce the laws on the field and stop said bowler from bowling and taking wickets?
