Was KKR’s Angkrish Raghuvanshi rightly given out? MCC steps in

The dismissal of Angkrish Raghuvanshi during an Indian Premier League match between Kolkata Knight Riders and Lucknow Super Giants has sparked widespread debate. Now, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the guardian of cricket laws, has stepped in to clarify why the decision was correct under the rules.

What exactly happened during the incident?

The moment unfolded in the fifth over of KKR’s innings, when Raghuvanshi was adjudged out for obstructing the field. His visible frustration after the decision, including striking the boundary cushion and throwing his helmet, led to a separate penalty under the IPL Code of Conduct.

What does the law say about ‘Obstructing the Field’?

The MCC referred to Law 37.1.1, which states that a batter is out if they deliberately interfere with the fielding side. The key issue is 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," it said.

This clarification emphasises that not all obstruction counts—only deliberate actions do.

Why did MCC say Raghuvanshi was out?

According to MCC, Raghuvanshi’s movement clearly met the threshold of a deliberate act.

"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, which is not somewhere he should be running in any event, and then turns and runs back on the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket. This is, by definition, a wilful act," MCC said.

The club further explained how alternative movements might have led to a different outcome.

"Had he stayed off the pitch, remaining on the offside, the ball would not have hit him, and even then, 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," it added.

Does it matter whether he would have been safe anyway?

A key part of the debate was whether Raghuvanshi should have been spared because he might have made his ground regardless of the throw.

MCC dismissed this argument, making it clear that likelihood of dismissal is irrelevant in such cases.

"However, this is not a consideration. Provided the obstruction does not prevent a catch being taken, whether a dismissal was likely is not a criterion in Obstructing the field, the MCC said.

Why was Raghuvanshi penalised separately?

Following the dismissal, Raghuvanshi was found guilty of breaching the IPL Code of Conduct for misuse of equipment. He was fined 20 per cent of his match fee and handed one demerit point.

What does this clarification mean going forward?

The MCC’s explanation reinforces a strict interpretation of intent in obstruction cases. Batters must avoid any movement that could be seen as deliberately interfering with fielders, even if they believe they are safely making their ground.

(With inputs from ANI)