During yet another rain break I had a conversation with one of the avid band of supporters who travel the length and breadth of the country to watch us play.

The gentleman in question must have watched more hours of live county cricket than most and so I thought he must be well qualified to raise what he called a 'point of concern' regarding one of the laws of cricket.

On the previous day of Championship cricket against Northants, Richard Montgomerie had been dismissed in an unfortunate fashion when his firm forcing shot off the back foot to the off-spin of Jason Brown cannoned into short leg's shins, which were protected by pads, and then into the hands of the gleeful slip fielder.

Monty returned to the dressing room crestfallen. And so he might be. That mode of dismissal is right up there with the worst of them, along with being run out whilst backing up at the non-striker's end and being caught behind down the leg side to a fine leg glance.

Our erstwhile Sussex follower's point, clearly sympathising with Monty, was that if the ball had ricocheted off the fielder's helmet instead of his shin pads, he would not have been given out. Is this logical and fair?

Indeed, law 32.3 states that a catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if "a fielder catches the ball after it has touched an umpire, another fielder or the other batsman.

However, it is not a fair catch if the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder, although the ball remains in play."

The law has clearly been adapted in recent years since helmets have become de rigeur for fielders close to the bat.

It was Dickie Bird, apparently, who took the law into his own hands in first denying a team a catch after the ball had rebounded off a helmet. The law was changed thereafter. It makes sense, of course, that if a fielder is struck very hard on the helmet and there is a chance of injury, his safety should be considered first and the fielding side should not be able to take advantage of the extra trajectory taken by the ball after the rebound.

It seems unjust to me, however, to make a distinction between the ball hitting the helmet and any other part of the body, whether protected or not.

The Sussex fan argued that in today's game, when a close fielder might wear a box, shin pads and helmet, why should there be a distinction between the various forms of protective clothing? If it should be called not out when a helmet is struck, then why should it not also be so in the case of the box or shin pad?

My view is that there is a grey area here and the laws of cricket should have evolved to eliminate such ambiguities.

I would abolish the distinction between helmet and other parts of the body so that a catch may be taken off any rebound. It does seem absurd to me that an umpire may be struck by the ball and a catch then taken when the same cannot happen to a fielder with a helmet.

As shown by Monty's dismissal, the ball will rebound just as far off a shin pad as off a modern helmet (or batting pad for that matter).

The safety issue is no longer entirely relevant either. The latest helmets made by C&D Albion, and now worn by the majority of cricketers, are sturdy constructions capable of absorbing the heaviest of blows. Monty himself was struck in the head very hard later in the match when fielding at short leg.

The ball deflected to the ground leaving Monty with nothing more than wry smile on his face.