The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the custodian of the laws of cricket, has defended the controversial decision to dismiss Kolkata Knight Riders batter Angkrish Raghuvanshi for obstructing the field during a recent Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 match. The incident occurred during a match against Lucknow Super Giants at the Ekana Stadium in Lucknow.
Law Clarification on Obstructing the Field
The London-based club, headquartered at Lord's Cricket Ground, issued a 'Law clarification' regarding the dismissal. According to the MCC, Raghuvanshi's dismissal met the criteria that a batter who changes direction while running, particularly one who changes direction to run on the pitch, or takes any other route that would not be the quickest way to the other end, is making a wilful act.
Details of the Incident
During the match, Raghuvanshi set off for a quick single but was sent back by his batting partner. As he turned and dived to make his ground, he was hit by the ball from a throw. Lucknow Super Giants fielders appealed, and after a review, third umpire Rohan Pandit ruled him out. Pandit determined that Raghuvanshi had changed his direction of movement after seeing the ball being thrown at him.
MCC's Explanation
The MCC explained that Law 37.1.1 states that either batter is out Obstructing the Field if they wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. This means the obstruction must be deliberate, which can be hard to determine. The club referred to Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, MCC's Official Interpretation of the Laws of Cricket, which has been accepted for many years. It states that a batter who changes direction while running, particularly one who changes direction to run on the pitch, or takes any other route that would not be the quickest way to the other end, is making a wilful act.
In Raghuvanshi's case, the MCC noted that he changed his direction wilfully from the off-side to the leg-side of the pitch while running between the wickets. When he set off for his run, he was on the off side of the wicket. As the ball reached the fielder, he crossed to the middle of the pitch, which is not a proper running area, and then turned and ran back on the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket. This, by definition, is a wilful act. Had he stayed on the off-side, the ball would not have hit him, and there would have been no question of obstruction. If he had started running down the leg side and returned on the same side, he would have been not out, as he would have been in the way but not wilfully.
Additional Clarifications
The MCC also clarified that a dismissal for obstructing the field does not take into account whether the batter would have survived without the obstruction. Some suggested that Raghuvanshi should not have been given out because he would have made his ground even if the throw had not hit him. However, the MCC stated that this is not a consideration. Provided the obstruction is not to prevent a catch being taken, whether a dismissal was likely is not a criterion in obstructing the field.
