Bowled / L.B.W.

[gooders]

It seems to me, since we have been discussing tha fantasies of a batman throwing his bat at a wide delivery, that we are into the silly season, so here goes.
If the bowler delivers a fair ball, and it deflects off his bat onto the wicket and breaks it, the batsman is out bowled - all agreed? O.K. However, if the batsman deflects (or edges) the ball and in the opinion of the umpire the ball would have hit the wicket, but for the intervention of the batsman's pad, and he is hit between wicket and wicket, he is not out L.B.W. - again, all agreed?
Why then should one be out and the other not out?
Notwithstanding what it says in the laws, what are your feelings about the fairness of these situations?

[missingleg]

We're all bored with it being the off-season, Gooders, so we have to create some puzzles for ourselves!

If you could be out lbw after hitting the ball with the bat, it would so so hard to judge anything from the ball's new travelling distance of an inch after contact with the bat! It would be a complete guess, so I'm glad we're covered there!

You're right though; it's inconsistant.

[sillypoint]

There is nothing inconsistent about the two scenarios described by gooders. Law 30 makes it perfectly clear that if the wicket is put down by the ball the striker is out bowled "even if it first touches his bat or person". On the other hand Law 36 clearly states that when considering whether the striker is out LBW "only the first interception is to be considered" and that that interception must be "with any part of his person".
In other words, if the ball actual puts the wicket down the striker is out bowled regardless of any previous contact between striker and ball. And if the first interception of the ball by the striker does not meet the requirements for LBW then the striker cannot be out under this law, regardless of any subsequent interception of the ball by his person.