Angkrish Raghuvanshi had a few words with the judges. (AP photo) MUMBAI: Prestigious Marylebone Cricket Club, which is the custodian of the laws of the game, on Thursday defended the umpires’ controversial decision to give out Kolkata Knight Riders batsman Angkrish Raghuvanshi for obstruction on the field in a recent IPL 2026 match. The London club, which is based at the historic Lord’s Cricket Ground, issued a “clarification of the law” regarding Obstructing the Field, saying Raghuvanshi’s dismissal met the criteria that “a batsman who changes direction during a run, particularly one who changes direction to run on the pitch or take any other route which would not be the fastest, is making a will”.Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SIGN UP NOW!The controversial incident took place last Sunday during KKR’s match against Lucknow Super Giants at the Ekana Stadium in Lucknow. Raghuvanshi went for a quick single and was sent back by his partner. He turned, dove into the water to adjust his ground, and was hit by the ball as the throw occurred. The LSG fielders appealed and third umpire Rohan Pandit gave it after a review. Pandit ruled that Raghuvanshi “changed the direction of movement” after seeing the ball being thrown at him.
Watch
James Hopes reacts after PBKS loss, calls it ‘reality check’In explaining the law regarding ‘obstruction on the field’, the MCC stated that “Law 37.1.1 states that either a batsman is out of the field if they “deliberately attempt to obstruct or distract the fielder by word or action”. This means that the obstruction must be intentional, which can be difficult to determine. There has long been an interpretation on this exact matter of running the batsman at the toss – it is published in Tom Smith’s Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, the MCC’s official interpretation of the Laws of Cricket, and has been accepted for many years. It reads: “A tackler who changes direction during a run, especially one who changes direction to run on the field or to take another route that would not be the fastest route to the other end, commits arbitrary action.”The MCA said the case for sending off Raghuvanshi for “obstruction on the field” was done under this law as he “deliberately” changed direction from the offside to the leg side while running between the wickets. “Raghuvanshi clearly meets that criteria. When he runs, he is outside the wicket. As soon as the ball reaches the fielder, he goes to the center of the pitch – which is not where he should be running under any circumstances – and then turns and runs back to the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket. That is, by definition, an intentional act off the pitch, if the ball had not stayed out of bounds. there would be no question of obstruction if he had started to run down the side feet, then he turned and came back to the ground on the same side before he was hit by the ball, it would also see him not out – he would be in the way, but not intentionally. The reason for his fall was a deliberate overstepping of the pitch,” MCC explained.The MCC also clarified that the dismissal as “field obstruction” does not take into account whether the batter would have survived without the obstruction. “There has been some suggestion that Raghuvanshi should not have been given out because he would have got through even if the throw had not hit him. However, this is not an option. Provided the obstruction does not prevent a catch, the criterion for on-field defending is not whether dismissal was likely,” the MCC statement concluded.
