MCC Clarifies Obstruction of Field Law After Controversial IPL Incident

MCC Addresses Recent IPL Controversy

London [UK], April 30: The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has provided a clarification regarding the law on obstruction of the field, following a contentious incident involving KKR batter Angkrish Raghuvanshi during a match against the Lucknow Super Giants in the Indian Premier League (IPL).

This incident took place in the fifth over of Kolkata Knight Riders' innings when Raghuvanshi was ruled out for obstructing the field. His reaction was one of frustration, as he struck the boundary cushion with his bat and later tossed his helmet into the dugout.

Following the dismissal, the IPL announced that Raghuvanshi had committed a Level 1 offence under Article 2.2 of the Code of Conduct, which pertains to the misuse of cricket equipment or clothing during a match. Consequently, he was fined 20% of his match fee and received one demerit point.

The decision has ignited discussions regarding whether the batter should have been ruled out or not for obstructing the field. In response, the MCC has clarified the circumstances surrounding Raghuvanshi's dismissal.

According to MCC's Law 37.1.1, a batter is out for obstructing the field if they 'wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.' This implies that the obstruction must be intentional, which can be challenging to ascertain.

The MCC stated, 'A batter who alters their running direction, especially one who runs on the pitch or takes a longer route to the other end, is engaging in a wilful act.' They further explained that Raghuvanshi's actions fit this definition.

When he began his run, he was positioned on the off side of the wicket. As the ball approached the fielder, he crossed to the middle of the pitch, an area he should not have been running through, and then turned to run back on the leg side, placing himself between the ball and the wicket. The MCC concluded that this was a deliberate act.

They added, 'Had he remained off the pitch on the off side, the ball would not have struck him, and there would have been no obstruction. If he had run down the leg side and then returned to his ground on that side before being hit, he would have been not out—he would have been in the way, but not wilfully. It is the intentional crossing of the pitch that led to his dismissal.'

Some have argued that Raghuvanshi should not have been given out since he would have made his ground even if the throw had not hit him. However, the MCC clarified, 'This is not a relevant factor. As long as the obstruction does not hinder a catch, the likelihood of a dismissal is not a consideration in obstruction cases.'