MUMBAI: The prestigious Marylebone Cricket Club, the custodian of the rules of the game, on Thursday defended the controversial decision of the umpires for obstructing Kolkata Knight Riders batsman Angkrish Raghovanshi on the field during an IPL 2026 match recently. Releasing a ‘legal clarification’ on obstructing the field, the London-based club, which is headquartered at the historic Lord’s Cricket Ground, said Raghuvanshi’s dismissal met the criteria that “a batsman who changes direction while running, particularly one who changes direction to run up the pitch, or does not accelerate to take another route”.Go beyond limits with our YouTube channel. Subscribe now!The controversial incident took place last Sunday during KKR’s match against Lucknow Supergiants at Ekna Stadium in Lucknow. Raghuvanshi goes for a quick single and is sent back by his partner. He turned to improve his ground, dived, and was hit by the ball as the throw came in. The pundit ruled that Raghuvanshi “changed his course of action” after seeing the ball thrown towards him.Explaining the law about ‘obstructing the field’, the MCC states that “Law 37.1.1 states that either a batsman is obstructing the field if he “intentionally attempts to obstruct or divert attention by word or act to the fielding.” This means that the obstruction must be intentional, which can be difficult to determine. It has long been interpreted as defining batting. Tom Smith is published in Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, the MCC’s Official Interpretation of the Laws of Cricket, and has been accepted for many years. It states: ‘A batsman who changes direction while running, especially one who changes direction to run on the pitch, or takes any other route which is not the quickest way to reach the other end, is acting deliberately.’The MCA said Raghuvanshi’s dismissal for ‘obstructing the field’ was made out in accordance with the law, as he had “deliberately” changed his direction from the offside to the leg side of the pitch while running between the wickets. “Raghavanshi clearly meets these criteria. When he sets off for his run, he is on the off side of the wicket. As the ball reaches the fielder he reaches the middle of the pitch – which is not where he should be running anyway – and then turns and runs back to the leg side, placing himself between the ball and the wicket. It is, by definition, an intentional act. If he had stayed off the pitch, offside, the ball would not have hit him and there would not even be a question of obstruction. If he had started running down the leg side, then turned and returned to his ground from the same side before the ball was hit, he would also have seen it not out – he would have been in the way, but not on purpose. It is the deliberate crossing of the pitch that caused his fall,” explained the MCC. The MCC also clarified that a dismissal such as ‘obstructing the field’ does not take into account whether the batsman would have survived without the obstruction. “There has been some suggestion that Raghuvanshi should not have been dismissed as he would have made his ground even if the throw had not been made. However, this is not a consideration. Provided the obstruction is not to prevent the taking of a catch, the likelihood of being dismissed is not a criterion for obstruction on the field,” the MCC statement concluded.
