MCC backs third umpire's call on Raghuvanshi's 'obstructing the field' dismissal

The decision to rule Angkrish Raghuvanshi out for 'obstructing the field' during the IPL 2026 clash between Kolkata Knight Riders and Lucknow Super Giants earlier this week prompted the Marylebone Cricket Club to issue a detailed clarification on how the ruling is applied.

Raghuvanshi, attempting a sharp single, was sent back midway by his partner Cameron Green. Raghuvanshi, who set off for the run on one side of the pitch, turned around and tried to regain his crease from the other side at which point the incoming throw struck him, leading to an appeal. The third umpire, after review, ruled him out under Law 37, citing obstruction.

In its clarification, MCC reiterated that Law 37.1.1 deems a batter out if they "wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action," emphasising the intent behind the movement rather than just the outcome.

The governing body pointed to a long-standing interpretation published in Tom Smith's Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, which states that a batter changing direction while running - particularly onto the pitch even if along a route that is not the quickest path - constitutes a wilful act.

According to MCC's explanation, Raghuvanshi began his run on the off side of the wicket but moved towards the middle of the pitch as the throw came in, before turning back on the leg side. This movement, which placed him directly in the line between the ball and the stumps, was deemed deliberate and therefore fell within the scope of obstruction.

MCC further clarified that had the batter remained on the off side or returned along the same path on the leg side, the incident would likely not have attracted a dismissal. "It is the wilful crossing of the pitch that caused his downfall," the statement noted.

Addressing another common point of contention - that Raghuvanshi would have made his crease even if the ball had hit the stumps - the MCC stressed that the likelihood of a run-out was irrelevant in such cases. Unless the obstruction is aimed at preventing a catch, the probability of dismissal does not factor into the decision-making process under this Law.

Raghuvanshi's dismissal had sparked debate over the application of the law. The KKR batter was fined 20 per cent of his match fee and handed a demerit point for his response to the decision, which breached the IPL's Code of Conduct for players and team officials. The 21-year-old was captured hitting the boundary cushions with his bat before throwing his helmet.

Click here to read article