Obstructing the Field in Cricket: What It Means, How It Works, and Famous Examples
Cricket has ten ways a batter can be dismissed. Most fans know the common onesbowled, caught, lbw, run out, stumped. But then there are the rare ones that appear once every few years and immediately generate enormous debate both on the ground and among viewers at home.
Obstructing the field is one of those dismissals. It is not complicated once you understand the central principlebut because it requires judging a batter's intent rather than simply observing what happened, it produces more controversy than almost any other type of dismissal in cricket.
What Obstructing the Field Actually Means
Obstructing the field is when a batter wilfully attempts to stop the fielding side from doing their job. The Laws of Cricket, maintained by the Marylebone Cricket Club, state that either batter can be given out obstructing the field if they wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action while the ball is in play.
The critical word in that definition is wilfully. Accidental interferencea batter's body naturally being in a fielder's path during normal running, for exampleis not obstructing the field. The umpire must be satisfied that the batter deliberately acted to prevent the fielding side from completing what they were attempting to do.
This requirement to judge intent is what makes obstructing the field both rare as a dismissal and controversial when it does occur. Unlike a caught dismissal where the fact of the catch is observable, an obstruction dismissal requires the umpire to make a judgment about what the batter meant to do rather than simply what they did.
The Three Most Common Ways Obstructing the Field Occurs
Blocking a throw aimed at the stumps
This is the most frequently seen version of the dismissal. A batter hits the ball, sets off for a run, and a fielder picks up and throws at the stumps to attempt a run-out. If the batter deliberately changes their running line to intercept that throwpositioning their body or bat between the ball and the stumpsthey can be given out obstructing the field.
The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate running here is important. Batters are entitled to run in a direct line between the wickets. What they are not entitled to do is deliberately deviate from that line to place themselves between the fielder's throw and the stumps.
Stopping a catch from being taken
If a batter hits the ball and it goes into the air toward a fielder attempting a catch, deliberately moving into the fielder's path or using the bat to deflect the ball away from the fielder constitutes obstruction. However there is an important technical rule hereif the fielder manages to complete the catch despite the batter's interference, the dismissal is caught rather than obstructing the field. Caught takes precedence over obstructing the field in the Laws.
Handling the ball without permission
Until 2017 this was a separate method of dismissal in cricket called handled the ball. Since then it has been incorporated under the obstructing the field umbrella. It applies when a batter touches the ball with their hand that is not holding the bat without the permission of the fielding side.
The reason this is a dismissal is straightforwardthe ball belongs to the fielding side once it is in play. If a batter picks it up or pushes it away they may alter its condition, affect a potential run-out of their batting partner, or otherwise interfere with the fielding side's rights over the ball. Permission from the fielding side removes this issueif a fielder asks a batter to throw the ball back and the batter does so, there is no dismissal.
When Obstruction Does Not Apply
Understanding what does not constitute obstructing the field is as important as understanding what does.
Accidental contact between a batter and a fielder or the ball during normal play does not constitute obstruction. The umpire looks specifically for deliberate action.
A batter who moves instinctively to avoid being hit by a hard throw from the field is not obstructing. Protecting yourself from injury is specifically recognised in the Laws as acceptable behaviour even when that protection incidentally prevents the ball from hitting the stumps.
A batter is also entitled to use their bat a second time to stop the ball from rolling back onto their stumps after playing a shot. This is permitted under the Laws as long as the batter is not in the process of obstructing a fielder's attempt to make a dismissal. The distinction is between protecting your wicket from the ball rolling onto it and using your bat to prevent a fielder from completing a run-out.
Famous Examples of Obstructing the Field in Cricket
Inzamam-ul-Haq vs India, 2006
One of the most discussed obstruction dismissals in cricket history. Inzamam played a shot and was out of his crease when Suresh Raina threw toward the stumps. Inzamam appeared to use his bat to deflect the throw away from the stumps. He was given out obstructing the field after an appeal, causing significant controversy and discussion about whether the action was deliberate.
Mohinder Amarnath vs Zimbabwe, 1989
India's Mohinder Amarnath became the first Indian player dismissed for obstructing the field in ODI cricket when he kicked the ball away from a fielder who was attempting to run him out. The dismissal was clear enough that it generated relatively little controversy about the decision itself, though its rarity made it notable.
Len Hutton vs South Africa, 1951
England's Len Hutton holds the distinction of being the first player dismissed for obstructing the field in Test cricket history. Playing against South Africa in 1951, Hutton used his hand to stop the ball from hitting his stumps, was appealed against, and given out by the umpire. The dismissal remains one of the most historically significant in the context of this particular Law.
Ramiz Raja vs West Indies, 1987
Pakistan's Ramiz Raja was dismissed obstructing the field in an ODI against the West Indies in 1987 while on 98 runs, just two away from what would have been a century. A fielder's throw heading toward the stumps was deflected by Ramiz's bat while he was attempting to complete a run, and he was given out. The circumstancesso close to a centurymade the dismissal particularly memorable.
Mushfiqur Rahim vs India, December 2023
Bangladesh's Mushfiqur Rahim was dismissed obstructing the field in a Test match against India in December 2023. After playing a defensive stroke, the ball bounced near the stumps and Mushfiqur deliberately pushed it away with his right handthe hand not holding the bat. The fielding side appealed and he was given out under the handled the ball provisions now incorporated within obstructing the field.
Angkrish Raghuvanshi, IPL 2026
During an IPL 2026 match KKR's Angkrish Raghuvanshi was given out obstructing the field after a direct throw hit him as he crossed the pitch attempting to return to his crease. The umpires determined that his positioning constituted deliberate obstruction rather than accidental contact during normal running.
The Umpire's Decision and Why It Is So Difficult
Obstructing the field places a uniquely demanding judgment requirement on cricket umpires. In most dismissals the question is factualdid the ball hit the stumps, was the catch completed cleanly, was the batter in their crease when the stumps were put down? In an obstruction dismissal the question is intentionaldid the batter mean to do what they did?
This is why umpires frequently consult with each other and with the third umpire when obstruction appeals are made. The same physical action can be either a legitimate movement during running or deliberate obstruction depending on the batter's intent, and making that judgment in real time under match pressure is genuinely difficult.
When a batter is dismissed obstructing the field, the bowler does not receive credit for the wicket. It is recorded as a team dismissalthe fielding side as a whole is creditedwhich reflects the nature of the dismissal as interference with the fielding operation rather than a bowling achievement.
Why Obstruction Dismissals Create So Much Debate
Every high-profile obstruction dismissal in cricket history has generated debate, and for good reason. The intent requirement means reasonable people watching the same incident can reach different conclusions about whether the batter meant to obstruct.
Television replays that show a batter's body language and the direction of their movement across multiple camera angles help but do not eliminate disagreement. A batter who genuinely was running normally and happened to be in the path of a throw will look from one angle identical to a batter who deliberately moved into the throw's path.
This ambiguity is inherent in the Law itself. Cricket chose to make intent rather than outcome the deciding criterion for obstruction, which produces fairer results in most casesan accidental deflection should not cost a batter their wicketbut creates the debate that every obstruction dismissal generates when the intent is not entirely clear.
FAQ: Obstructing the Field in Cricket
What is obstructing the field in cricket?
Obstructing the field is when a batter wilfully attempts to prevent the fielding side from completing a dismissal or otherwise interfering with their work. It requires deliberate intentaccidental contact during normal play is not obstruction.
How common is obstructing the field as a dismissal in cricket?
It is one of the rarest dismissals in cricket at all levels. In international cricket it occurs only a handful of times across decades of matches, which is why each instance generates significant attention and debate.
Is handled the ball the same as obstructing the field?
Since 2017 handled the ball has been incorporated into the obstructing the field Law. A batter who touches the ball with their hand that is not holding the bat without the fielding side's permission is now dismissed for obstructing the field rather than under a separate handled the ball provision.
Does the bowler get credit for an obstructing the field wicket?
No. When a batter is dismissed obstructing the field the wicket is credited to the fielding side as a team rather than to the bowler. It appears in scorecards as obstructed the field without a bowler's name attached.
Can a batter be given out for accidentally getting in the way of a fielder?
No. Accidental obstruction is not out. The Law specifically requires wilful or deliberate intent. If a batter naturally occupies a position during running that happens to interfere with a fielder without any deliberate attempt to obstruct, the umpire should not give them out.
What is the difference between obstructing the field and a run-out?
A run-out occurs when a fielder puts down the stumps with the batter out of their crease through normal fielding action. Obstructing the field specifically involves the batter deliberately interfering with the fielding side's attempt to complete a dismissalfor example by deflecting a throw away from the stumps rather than simply failing to make their ground.
