MCC Clarifies ‘Obstructing The Field’ Law After Angkrish Raghuvanshi’s Controversial Dismissal in IPL 2026

MCC issued a detailed clarification on the ‘Obstructing the Field’ law following Angkrish Raghuvanshi’s debated dismissal in IPL 2026.

The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has stepped in to clarify the ‘Obstructing the Field’ rule after a controversial decision involving Angkrish Raghuvanshi during the Indian Premier League 2026 clash between Kolkata Knight Riders and Lucknow Super Giants.

The incident unfolded when Raghuvanshi attempted a quick single but was sent back midway by his batting partner. As he turned back and dived to make his ground, a throw from the fielding side struck him, leading to an immediate appeal. After a review, the third umpire ruled him out for obstructing the field, triggering widespread debate among fans and experts over the interpretation of the law.

MCC Explains Law 37 and ‘Intent’ Factor

In response to the controversy, MCC reiterated the guidelines under Law 37.1.1, which deals with obstruction of the field. The governing body stressed that the key element in such decisions is the batter’s intent.

“A batter who changes direction while running, particularly one who changes direction to run on the pitch, or takes any other route that would not be the quickest way to the other end, is making a wilful act,” MCC wrote.

The clarification further referenced Tom Smith’s Cricket Umpiring and Scoring guide, which explains that any deviation from a direct running path, especially moving onto the pitch or altering direction unnecessarily, can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to obstruct the fielding side.

ALSO READ | ‘Are You Trolling Virat Kohli?’ Rajasthan Royals’ Viral Autograph Video Triggers IPL 2026 Debate

Why Raghuvanshi Was Given Out

Elaborating on the specific case, MCC explained that Raghuvanshi initially ran on the off side but later shifted towards the middle of the pitch before turning back on the leg side. This change in movement placed him directly in the line of the throw and the stumps.

According to MCC, this deviation was crucial in determining the decision, as it qualified as a “wilful act” under the law. Had he continued along his original running line and still been struck by the ball, the outcome might have been different, potentially resulting in a not-out decision.

The MCC also addressed another major talking point, stating that the possibility of the batter completing the run safely does not influence such rulings. Unless the situation involves preventing a catch, the outcome of the play is irrelevant when assessing obstruction.