FaaipDeOiad on why he liked the old system:
Anyway, I don't think the old system was "unfair on certain types of bowlers" at all, unless by that you mean bowlers who appeared to chuck. I'll offer another example though, in terms of favouring the view of the umpires over scientific methodology off-field in modern cricket. In an LBW decision, it doesn't actually matter in any technical sense whether or not, say, the ball pitches outside leg-stump, it only matters how the umpire views it. It might matter when it comes to assessing the performance of the umpire, and that's fair enough, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not the batsman is out. When Katich was given out LBW during his crucial innings in the Old Trafford test last year, the ball pitched a foot or so outside leg, but he was out because the umpire didn't think it did. You can analyse the video footage however you like, but it doesn't change the fact of the situation, or the bearing that the umpire's decision had on the match or on Katich's career (which may well be still going in tests, had he scored a century that day and saved the game).
It's a situation we see a lot in modern cricket, where we can view an umpire's decision after the fact and comment on it, but the commentary has no bearing on the results. Umpires which incorrectly or unfairly make chucking calls will undoubtedly be vilified or downgraded from the top level, but their decisions should stand because that is their purpose in the game. It is idiotic to create a law that umpires cannot enforce and allow those that break the rules to have free reign simply to avoid controversial decisions. The correct move for the good of the sport would be to restore the rules to either the umpire's view of the actual level of elbow flexion (especially given that 15 degrees is meant to be the level at which it is visible to the human eye), in which case most of the bowlers who get reported would be called from time to time, or alternatively to a point where it is the judgement of the umpire as to the intent of the bowler, and whether or not he is attempting to gain an advantage by straigtening his arm in delivery. Simple and enforcable, and true to the basic principles of the game. Until a better method can be instituted, that's the way to go.
