Run out off the helmet of the fielding side.

[umpireindia]

Though according to the law 38.2 (c)

"the ball, having been played by the striker, or having come off
his person, directly strikes a helmet worn by a fielder and without further contact with him or any other fielder rebounds directly on to the wicket. However, the ball remains in play and either batsman may be Run out in the circumstances of 1 above if a wicket is subsequently put down",

there is lot of confusion in the domestic circuit umpiring in India regarding this law.

The law talks about the ball that after having played with the bat by the striker directly hits the fielder's helmet and states that he shall not be run out or stumped.

My question is, "if after the striker had played at the ball with his bat or from his person, goes to a fielder who picks it up and throws it to any other fielder who is wearing a helmet, the ball hits the helmet and then rebounds on to the stumps, is any of the batsman out RUN OUT, if he was outside his ground."

I had a strong opinion that the same policy should apply here as well as in the law.

[wisden17]

In my opinion yes a batsman could be run out in these circumstances.

Law 38.2 (c) as you rightly point out only mentions the ball "directly strik[ing] a helmet worn by a fielder". Appendix D helps us further with what this means. In Appendix D the following can be found:

Rebounds directly/strikes directly and similar phrases mean without contact with any fielder but do not exclude contact with the ground.

For that reason it would seem clear that in your situation that a batsman could be Run Out, as the ball has not been "directly" struck to the helmet.

[umpireindia]

Great!!!!!!!

But, if the morale of the law is considered, (as far as I know, the morale is that the fielding side should not benefit from something that gives protection), dont you think it is against the spirit of the law if you give the batsman out runout?

[wisden17]

Yes I understand your point. However, the law is quite specific.

You could argue that the law is simply trying to stop a run out from occuring where the ball has not actually physically touched a fielder. Indeed this is what I would argue it is doing.

The situation you describe is where a fielder has thrown the ball and then it has hit a helmet (being worn), and then hit the stumps. In this situation you could argue that it is in the spirit of the game for the batsman to be out as a fielder has caused the dismissal!