MCC Clarifies Obstruction of Field Law After Controversial IPL Incident
MCC Issues Clarification on Obstruction of Field Rule
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 in the Indian Premier League (IPL) involving KKR player Angkrish Raghuvanshi during a match against Lucknow Super Giants.
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 addresses the misuse of cricket equipment or clothing, as well as ground fixtures during a match. Consequently, he was fined 20% of his match fee and received one demerit point.
The decision has ignited discussions about whether the batter should have been declared 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 means that the obstruction must be intentional, which can be challenging to ascertain.
The MCC elaborated, stating, '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 deliberate act.' They noted that Raghuvanshi's actions fit this description.
Specifically, the MCC explained, 'When he begins his run, he is positioned on the off side of the wicket. As the ball approaches the fielder, he crosses to the middle of the pitch, which is not an appropriate running path, and then turns to run back on the leg side, placing himself between the ball and the wicket. This is, by definition, a deliberate act.'
The MCC further stated, '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 turned back to his ground on that side before being hit, he would not have been out—he would have been in the way, but not intentionally. It is the intentional crossing of the pitch that led to his dismissal.'
Some have argued that Raghuvanshi should not have been ruled 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 from being taken, the likelihood of a dismissal is not a consideration in obstruction of the field cases.'