Angkrish Raghuvanshi IPL 2026 (Source: AP)
Angkrish Raghuvanshi’s controversial ‘obstructing the field’ dismissal became one of the most debated moments of IPL 2026 during last night’s LSG vs KKR clash at the Ekana Stadium.
Coming in during a shaky innings, Raghuvanshi attempted to steady the innings, but his stay ended in unusual fashion when he was given out for obstructing the field. The KKR batter became only the fourth player in 19 years of the IPL to be given out obstructing the field.
The incident unfolded off Prince Yadav’s delivery as the KKR batter nudged the ball towards mid-on and set off for a quick single.
However, he was sent back midway by the non-striker. He dived to make his ground as the throw came in. The ball struck him on the way, prompting an appeal from LSG bowler Mohammad Shami.
After a review, the third umpire ruled that Angkrish Raghuvanshi had changed his running line, leading to the dismissal. The decision has been a talk of the town with visible disbelief among the KKR camp as well as the fans.
That being said, let’s further explore ICC’s rules on the same.
What is obstructing the field in cricket?
Obstructing the field refers to a batter intentionally hindering the fielding side’s attempt to field the ball without their consent while the ball is in play.
This intentional interference could manifest in many ways, such as physically obstructing the field, altering the ball’s direction, or impeding a potential run-out by preventing a fielder’s throw from hitting the stumps.
Also read: Angkrish Raghuvanshi Handed Brutal Punishment By BCCI After Obstructing The Field
The intent of the batter plays a key role. So, a deliberate effort to stop the fielding side must be identified. Accidental, unintentional or contact with the ball-fielder to avoid injury is not considered grounds for dismissal, even if the fielding side appeals for the dismissal.
Was the third umpire right in giving Raghuvanshi out? ICC rule explained
Many viewers and former players have thought the decision was harsh, arguing that the batter was diving to make his ground instinctively and did not deliberately block the ball.
However, the third umpire, namely Rohan Pandit, is legally correct under the strict interpretation of Law 37.1.4, which states that a batter can be out for significantly changing direction and obstructing a run-out, regardless of intent.
While the decision was controversial, officials determined Angkrish Raghuvanshi moved into the throw's path while returning to his crease.
It is further noted that you can’t expect a batter to make a 180-degree turn, and that there is bound to be a natural radius.
Pandit didn't burden himself with questions of intent, but was concerned only with establishing two fairly objective facts: did Raghuvanshi change direction significantly, and did he do so without probable cause?
ICC Clause 37 on obstructing the field
In the official ICC rule book, the clause regarding the “changing direction” was clarified in recent years to help umpires make objective decisions without having to “read the batter’s mind” (intent).
Moreover, as per the laws of cricket, either batter is out obstructing the field if and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
"For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed his direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder's attempt to effect a run-out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out obstructing the field. "
"It shall not be relevant whether a run-out would have occurred or not. If the change of direction involves the batsman crossing the pitch, Clause 41.14 (often referred to as 41.14 - Batter Damaging the Pitch in modern rules) shall also apply," the ICC rule reads.
Senior umpire Anil Chaudhary questions Angkrish Raghuvanshi’s controversial dismissal
Indian cricket umpire Anil Chaudhary has shared his verdict on the controversial obstruction of the field in the IPL 2026. According to Chaudhary, the batter should not have been given out, as these did not appear to have any deliberate intent to obstruct the field.
Chaudhary further added that while the replays could suggest a case of obstruction, such decisions ultimately come down to the umpire’s interpretation and remain a matter of opinion. Raghuvanshi, who was dismissed for just nine runs, appeared visibly upset with the call.
“If you watch it in a replay, you might feel that it is [obstruction], but if you watch it in real-time, you can form a slightly better opinion. It is an opinion call. I personally felt 'not out' was a better call. This is Law 37,” said Chaudhary.
Also read: Ravichandran Ashwin Names The Only Condition On Which MS Dhoni Will Play For CSK In IPL 2026
