Reading over the Laws of Cricket there are some rules I think could be modified or removed entirely. The Kasprowicz incident as Edgbaston is one. Kasper's hand came off the bat, the ball then struck the hand and the catch was taken by Jones. According to the Laws of Cricket this should be not out.
So technically the other hand is not part of the bat (makes sense because it is not in contact with the bat at all). I just find something unsettling about a player being struck on the gloves. Had the glove been on the bat then the catch would have been clean. Had the hand deliberately come in contact with the ball off the bat it would have been "handled the ball". So why if a batsman is so poor as to remove his hand from the bat and then unintentionally come in contact with the ball does it justify him being not out.Originally Posted by Law 6.3
In accordance with this runs should also be able to be scored from the same scenario. Simply change the rules to say "either the bat or hands or glove worn on the strikers hands".