Angrish Raghuvanshiโs dismissal against Lucknow Super Giants drew much controversy in the ongoing IPL 2026. Notably, the Kolkata Knight Riders batter attempted for a run, but was asked to go back midway. While returning, he changed his path. During which, Mohammed Shamiโs run-out attempt was blocked by Raghuvanshi, which looked unintentional. However, the umpires ruled it an obstruction of the field, resulting in the youngster being asked to walk back.ย
Notably, the decision to rule the batter out for obstructing the field quickly became a talking point, with observers questioning whether the movement that led to the contact with the ball was deliberate or simply instinctive during a rapid exchange. The Marylebone Cricket Club finally commented on it and interestingly, they backed the umpires.ย
The MCC addressed the debate by pointing to established interpretations within the Laws of Cricket, noting that intentional deviation while running, particularly involving movement across the pitch, falls within the definition of obstruction.
โThere has long been an interpretation on this exact matter, where a batter is running as the throw comes in โ it is published in Tom Smithโs Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, MCCโs Official Interpretation of the Laws of Cricket, and has been accepted for many years.
โIt states: โa 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 actโ,โ the MCC wrote in a statement.
MCC explains further
Further clarification from the governing body focused on the specifics of Raghuvanshiโs movement during the play.
โRaghuvanshi 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 crosses to the middle of the pitch โ which is not somewhere he should be running in any event โ and then turns and runs back on the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket,โ the MCC explained.
โThis is, by definition, a wilful act. Had he stayed off the pitch, remaining on the off side, the ball would not have hit him and even there would have been no question of an obstruction. If he had started running down the leg side, then turned and returned to his ground on that same side before being hit by the ball, that would also see him being Not out – he would have been in the way, but not wilfully. It is the wilful crossing of the pitch that caused his downfall,โ the MCC added.
Following the incident, Raghuvanshi was penalised under IPL regulations, receiving a fine amounting to 20 percent of his match fee along with one demerit point after admitting to a Level 1 breach related to the misuse of equipment.
Also Read: