Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Obstructing the field

Obstructing the field is a rare method of dismissal in , governed by Law 37 of the , whereby either batter is given out if they wilfully obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action while the ball is in play. This law aims to prevent deliberate interference that hinders the fielders from executing their duties, such as catching the ball, effecting a , or fielding, and it applies regardless of whether a has been called. Specific acts that constitute obstruction include the wilfully striking the ball with a hand not holding the , significantly changing to avoid a without justification, or returning the ball to a fielder using the or without the fielding side's consent. A batter is under this law if the obstruction is accidental, occurs to avoid injury, or involves the lawful guarding of the wicket with a second strike of the . Umpires must determine intent, as unintentional actions—such as deflecting a throw in self-protection—do not result in dismissal, though they may award runs or boundaries if the batter would have been safe otherwise. When obstruction prevents a catch, the batter is out even if they were lawfully defending their wicket, and no runs are scored from that , though penalty runs (such as five for obstructing the field) may still apply. The bowler does not receive credit for the in the scorebook. Historically, this dismissal is infrequent, with the first recorded instance dating to 1792 in a match between Sheffield Cricket Club and Bents Green. Notable cases include Len Hutton's dismissal in a 1951 against —the only such occurrence in until Mushfiqur Rahim's in 2023 against —and several incidents, such as Inzamam-ul-Haq's in 2006 against for blocking a throw. Recent examples, like ' controversial non-dismissal in the 2019 final due to lack of intent, highlight umpires' interpretive role in high-stakes scenarios. The law, maintained by the (), underscores cricket's emphasis on and .

Definition and Rules

General Definition

Obstructing the field is a method of dismissal in governed by Law 37 of the () (2017 Code, 3rd Edition 2022). Under this law, either batter is out obstructing the field if, while the ball is in play and except in the circumstances outlined in Law 37.2, they wilfully obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. This includes scenarios where the wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat while receiving a , applicable regardless of whether a is called. A central for this dismissal is the presence of wilful ; accidental obstructions or distractions do not result in an out, nor do actions taken to avoid injury or to lawfully guard the under Law 34.3. If both batters contribute to an obstruction, the shall dismiss the batter who, in their opinion, wilfully obstructed or distracted the fielding side. Additionally, either batter can be out if they return the ball to a fielder without the fielding side's by using their or person, thereby preventing a . Law 37 was updated in the Code to incorporate elements from the former dismissal (previously Law 33), reducing the total number of dismissal methods from ten to nine and broadening the scope to address deliberate interference more comprehensively. This revision emphasizes preventing unfair advantages gained through intentional actions while preserving the game's spirit.

Specific Forms of Obstruction

Obstructing the field under Law 37 of the encompasses two primary forms of dismissal for a batter: wilful obstruction by and the unauthorized return of the to a fielder. These forms are distinct in their and intent requirements, ensuring that only deliberate interferences with the fielding side's legitimate play are penalized. The first form, wilful obstruction by , occurs when a batter intentionally hinders or distracts the fielding side through words or deeds while the is in play. This includes scenarios where a batter handles the —using a hand not holding the to it—during receipt of a delivery, whether as the first or subsequent ones in defense of the . For instance, a batter might deliberately kick or throw the away to prevent a fielder from effecting a , thereby obstructing the fielding side's attempt to dismiss a batter. Such s apply regardless of whether a has been called, emphasizing the wilful nature required to distinguish them from accidental occurrences. The second form involves a batter returning the to a fielder without consent while the remains in play. Here, a batter uses the or any part of the to pick up and throw or return the to a fielder, ostensibly to aid fielding but potentially obstructing plays like run-outs if the fielders were instead attempting to effect a dismissal. This action is deemed obstructing regardless of intent to hinder, as it interferes with the fielding side's control over the without permission. It is a rarer dismissal, often arising from naive or instinctive behavior rather than deliberate sabotage. The key differences between these forms lie in their scope and evidentiary thresholds: wilful obstruction by action demands proof of intent to obstruct or distract the fielding side, as in preventing a throw or , whereas returning the ball focuses on the unauthorized act itself, which may inadvertently aid fielding but disrupts potential dismissals. Both require the ball to be in play, but the former broadly covers verbal or physical distractions, while the latter is narrowly tied to ball-handling post-play. Certain actions do not constitute obstruction, providing clarity on permissible batter conduct. Accidental obstructions or distractions are exempt, as are those made to avoid or during lawful defensive plays, such as the striker using hand or body on the first strike to protect the . Additionally, a batter may safely pick up a or verbally warn fielders of an impending without risk of dismissal, as these do not wilfully interfere with active fielding efforts.

Umpire's Role in Adjudication

In , umpires play a pivotal role in adjudicating obstructing the field dismissals under Law 37 of the , requiring a formal from the fielding side before declaring a batter out, distinguishing it from automatic dismissals like . This must be made promptly, typically by a fielder asking "How's that?" before the next ball is bowled or time is called, ensuring the umpires review the incident only upon request. Umpires assess whether the batter's action constitutes wilful obstruction or distraction by evaluating the context, including the batter's position relative to the ball and fielders, the fielder's intended path, and whether the act was deliberate to prevent a dismissal such as a catch or run-out. Accidental interference, actions to avoid injury, or legitimate defensive play do not qualify as out, emphasizing the need for umpires to differentiate intent from inadvertent occurrences. If doubt arises, the on-field umpires must consult each other to reach a , defaulting to "not out" if unresolved, which underscores their collaborative responsibility in maintaining fairness. In international matches where the (DRS) is available, the fielding may challenge the decision, prompting the third to review broadcast footage, slow-motion replays, and other technology to clarify whether wilful obstruction occurred. Should the umpires determine the action was not wilful enough for dismissal, they may instead apply penalties under Law 41 for unfair play, awarding five penalty runs to the fielding side for deliberate or , with the declared and no dismissal enforced. This provision allows umpires to penalize borderline conduct without resorting to outright dismissal, and while the core rule remains consistent across formats, enforcement tends to be more stringent in limited-overs like T20Is due to the faster pace and emphasis on quick fielding.

Historical Development

Earliest Recorded Instance

The earliest recorded instance of a batsman being dismissed for obstructing the field occurred on 27 August 1792 in a match between Cricket Club and Bents Green at . A Bents Green player picked up the ball and threw it to the bowler to prevent a . The umpire called the batsman out under the rules prohibiting with the fielding side. This event marks the origin of the obstructing the field dismissal, highlighting 18th-century cricket's emphasis on and , even as the game lacked a fully formalized set of laws—the initial codification having occurred in 1744, with significant expansions in subsequent decades.

Evolution of the Rule in

The obstructing the field rule originated in the 1774 , where it was included under provisions prohibiting the from wilfully obstructing the ball or using any part of the person to stop it, often linked to restrictions against striking the ball twice or other forms of direct interference. This early codification emphasized physical prevention of the ball's progress, reflecting the game's focus on in basic fielding actions. The laws continued to evolve through revisions, formalizing obstruction as a distinct mode of dismissal for intentional hindrance. In the 1947 Code, obstructing the field was separated as Law 37 (in some editions numbered as Law 40), formalizing its application to either batsman through wilful actions or words that impeded the fielding side, such as preventing a catch or run-out. The rule's evolution has been influenced by its rarity, resulting in conservative updates that prioritize clarity over frequent revision; for instance, post-war incidents underscored the necessity of an umpire's appeal for dismissal, reinforcing intent as a core element. The 2017 Code retained Law 37 but clarified wilful intent requirements and integrated the obsolete "handled the ball" provisions, explicitly covering non-striker interference and verbal distractions while specifying when the ball becomes dead upon obstruction. Minor tweaks in the 2022 edition further refined dead ball scenarios to address edge cases in obstruction rulings. Across eras, pre-1900 formulations concentrated on physical ball handling and positional interference, whereas contemporary versions under the and Codes broaden scope to include verbal actions and collaborative batter conduct, adapting to evolving tactics while maintaining the emphasis on deliberate unfairness.

Instances in Test Cricket

First Recorded Test Dismissal

The first recorded instance of a batsman being dismissed for obstructing the field in occurred during the fifth Test match between and at in , from August 16 to 20, 1951. , chasing 120 runs for victory in their second innings, had reached 53 for 1 when opener , who had scored 27 runs, was given out on this rare mode of dismissal. The incident unfolded when Hutton top-edged a from South African spinner Athol Rowan, causing the ball to loop towards the stumps. In an attempt to protect his wicket, Hutton struck at the ball a second time with his , but this action prevented wicket-keeper Willie Endean from completing a straightforward catch. The South Africans appealed to Dai Davies, who, after brief consideration, upheld the appeal and ruled Hutton out for obstructing the field under Law 40, which prohibits wilful interference with fielding efforts. This dismissal marked a historic , as no such out had occurred in the 74 years since the first match in , highlighting the rarity of the offence in the longer format where batsmen typically have more time to react without deliberate interference. The decision sparked immediate debate over the interpretation of "wilful" intent, with Hutton later describing his action as an instinctive defensive move to safeguard his own rather than a deliberate obstruction of the fielders. Despite the controversy, the ruling stood, and went on to win the match by 4 wickets, securing a 3-1 series victory. The infrequency of obstructing the field in was underscored by this event remaining the sole instance for over seven decades, until Bangladesh's was dismissed similarly in , emphasizing how the five-day format's pace limits opportunities for such wilful actions compared to shorter games.

Subsequent Test Dismissals

The only subsequent instance of an obstructing the field dismissal in occurred on December 6, 2023, during the second Test between and at the in , . batter , on 35 off 83 balls, defended a length delivery from 's , after which the ball bounced up wide of off stump; in a moment of lapse, Rahim used his right glove to deliberately push the ball away, prompting an immediate appeal from the fielding side. This action was deemed a wilful obstruction under Law 37.1.2 of the Laws of , which prohibits a batter from using their hand to interfere with the ball while it is in play without the fielders' consent, as it prevented the fielders from safely fielding the ball. On-field umpire Sharfuddoula initially gave Rahim not out, but following a review requested by New Zealand captain Tim Southee, television umpire Ahsan Raza upheld the appeal after deeming the action deliberate, making Rahim the first Bangladesh batter—and only the second in Test history—to be dismissed in this manner since Len Hutton in 1951. The dismissal, which occurred in the 41st over of Bangladesh's first innings, contributed to their total of 172 all out, with Rahim's exit leaving them at 104 for five. Notably, prior to 2017, such an incident might have fallen under the now-abolished "handled the ball" dismissal, but the unified "obstructing the field" law streamlined these rare cases. This event marked the second—and, as of November 2025, the last—obstructing the field dismissal across more than 2,500 Test matches played since the format's inception in , underscoring the rule's extreme rarity in the longest format. No further instances have been recorded in the intervening period, including through the 2024 and 2025 calendar years, despite occasional appeals in high-profile series such as versus . The scarcity reflects the deliberate and cautious nature of , where batters rarely risk such instinctive actions amid extended play and fewer high-pressure run attempts compared to shorter formats. Both historical cases involved efforts to interfere with the ball's path post-contact, often in scenarios for the precedent, highlighting how the rule remains dormant due to players' adherence to traditional fielding dynamics.

Instances in Limited-Overs International Cricket

One Day Internationals

Obstructing the field dismissals in men's One Day Internationals have occurred infrequently, with a total of eight recorded instances as of November 2025. These rare events underscore the rule's application in high-pressure scenarios, where batsmen must avoid wilfully hindering fielders, particularly during run-out attempts, as outlined in Law 37 of the Laws of Cricket. The first such dismissal in ODIs took place in 1987, marking the start of a pattern that averaged roughly one per decade until the 2010s, when occurrences increased slightly due to more aggressive running in limited-overs formats. The inaugural case involved Pakistan's Rameez Raja against in on November 17, 1987, where he was dismissed on 99 after using his bat to deflect a throw aimed at the stumps during a tight chance, preventing a potential match-winning . This heartbreaking dismissal highlighted the rule's enforcement even in tense end-of-innings situations. Subsequent early examples were sparse; India's was next out in 1989 against in , scoring 28, after kicking the ball away to avoid a while backing up. Amarnath remains unique as the only player dismissed for both obstructing the field and handling the ball across . Later instances often arose in chase scenarios with frantic running between wickets. Pakistan's was given out for 16 against in on February 6, 2006, after blocking a direct throw with his bat while out of his crease, prompting an immediate appeal and umpires' confirmation; Inzamam later expressed confusion over the , famously stating he was unaware of it. In , two Pakistani players fell to the same fate against : (46) in after veering into the path of a throw, and Anwar Ali (7) in Port Elizabeth for using his bat to obstruct a direct hit during a quick single. These back-to-back cases illustrated the 's relevance in subcontinental teams' aggressive playstyles. More recent dismissals reflect evolving interpretations amid faster-paced ODIs. England's was out for 10 against at , on September 5, 2015, after extending his hand to deflect a throw from aimed at the stumps, a decision upheld on appeal despite debate over intent; Stokes accepted it maturely, noting it was "by the letter of the law." In 2019, USA's was dismissed for obstructing against UAE in , using his hand to stop a throw during a attempt. The most recent came in 2021, with Sri Lanka's out for 2 versus in Pallekele, after altering his running path and blocking a throw to the bowler's end. Common patterns across these dismissals include occurrences during appeals in the middle or late overs of chases, where quick running heightens collision risks with throws; all required explicit appeals from the fielding side, with umpires adjudicating based on wilful intent rather than accident. Notably, no such ODI dismissal has been overturned via (DRS), as the mode falls under umpire's call without soft-signal reliance for interference judgments. This rarity—fewer than one per 1,000 ODIs—emphasizes the rule's role in maintaining without frequent invocation.

T20 Internationals

Obstructing the field dismissals remain exceptionally rare in men's T20 Internationals, with only five recorded instances as of November 2025, reflecting the format's emphasis on rapid play where such actions often occur amid chaotic attempts. The first such dismissal occurred on June 23, 2017, during the second T20I between and at , when 's was given out for 67. Roy, responding to a call from partner , turned back to his crease but veered across the pitch, obstructing the direct path of a throw from fielder ; the ball struck Roy on the boot, and following an appeal and review by the TV , the decision was upheld under Law 37, marking the inaugural case in T20I history. The second instance came on January 23, 2019, in the seventh T20I of the Quadrangular Series, where ' Hassan Rasheed was dismissed for 16 against at Al Amerat Cricket Ground. Rasheed deliberately extended his bat to deflect a throw aimed at the stumps during a opportunity, an action deemed willful obstruction by the umpires, highlighting how T20's aggressive fielding can provoke instinctive but rule-violating responses. On July 10, 2022, in the Cup at , Austria's captain Razmal Shigiwal was out for 10 against the after wilfully obstructing a fielder's throw to the stumps during a attempt, becoming the first T20I captain to suffer this dismissal. Subsequent cases emerged in associate nation matches in 2024, underscoring the rule's application in lower-profile fixtures. On , 2024, ' Mohamed Azzam was out for 11 against in the Bhutan Quadrangular T20I Series semi-final at , during a scenario in the 17th over, though specific details of the obstruction were not widely reported. Similarly, on November 16, 2024, Myanmar's Htet Lin Oo fell for 1 against in the fourth T20I of their bilateral series at Udayana Cricket Ground, , again in the context of a quick throw to the stumps early in the . These incidents illustrate the challenges of adjudicating intent in T20's high-pace environment, where shorter boundaries intensify fielding pressure but completed runs before the offense are still awarded per the . Compared to One Day Internationals, where endurance running creates more prolonged opportunities for obstruction, T20I cases are scarcer due to the format's brevity, yet the quicker tempo often amplifies the risk during frantic exchanges. Only Roy's dismissal involved the (), as higher-profile matches enable such technology, while associate games typically rely on on-field umpires. All known T20I instances have centered on batsmen interfering with throws to the stumps, emphasizing the rule's focus on willful actions that prevent fielders from effecting dismissals.

Instances in Women's International Cricket

Women's One Day Internationals

Obstructing the field remains an exceedingly rare dismissal in Women's One Day Internationals (ODIs), with only one recorded instance as of November 2025. This scarcity contrasts with men's ODIs, where eight batsmen have been given out in this manner since 1987. The unique case occurred on November 12, 2016, during the second ODI between India and West Indies at the ACA-VDCA Cricket Stadium in Vijayawada. Indian opener M.D. Thirush Kamini was dismissed for 2 runs in the fourth over after wilfully obstructing a fielder's attempt to effect a run-out at the non-striker's end, marking the first such dismissal in women's ODI history. The incident unfolded as Kamini and her opening partner attempted a quick early in the , with the score at 23/1 following the dismissal. West Indies fielder Deandra Dottin threw the ball toward the stumps at the bowler's end, but Kamini, believing her partner was safe, deliberately deflected it away with her hand to prevent a potential , prompting an immediate appeal that umpires upheld under Law 37.1 of the , which requires wilful obstruction while the ball is in play. This event highlighted the dismissal's emphasis on , particularly in defensive actions during scenarios, a pattern consistent with most obstructing cases across formats. Since 2016, no further dismissals have occurred in women's ODIs, reflecting the format's strategic focus on partnerships and less aggressive fielding pressures compared to T20s, though professionalization has heightened awareness of the rule. A notable near-miss arose in the second ODI between England and India on July 19, 2025, at Lord's, where England opener Tammy Beaumont survived an appeal for obstructing the field. With England chasing 144 in a rain-reduced 29-over match, Beaumont (on 25 off 17 balls) clipped a delivery from Deepti Sharma and set off for a single; as non-striker Maia Bouchier was struggling, Indian fielder Jemimah Rodrigues threw to the bowler's end, and Beaumont appeared to kick the ball away while her left foot remained grounded inside the crease. India appealed, and Jacqueline Williams reviewed via , ultimately ruling Beaumont not out, determining she had safely made her ground and lacked wilful intent to obstruct, as the deflection occurred reflexively off her pad and boot during the run-out attempt. This decision underscored the role of in clarifying marginal calls in women's ODIs, where such appeals are infrequent but often arise in high-stakes defenses amid building partnerships. The lower incidence in women's may stem from fielding styles that prioritize catching and direct hits over rapid throws in congested 50-over games, though growing professionalism could see more scrutiny in future.

Women's T20 Internationals

Obstructing the field remains an exceedingly rare dismissal in Women's T20 Internationals (WT20Is), with only three confirmed instances recorded as of November 2025. The format's emphasis on aggressive batting and quick singles heightens the potential for accidental obstructions during run-outs, yet umpires have historically applied the rule cautiously, requiring clear evidence of willful intent under Law 37 of the . This scarcity reflects broader trends in , where obstruction rates are lower than in men's T20Is, partly due to fewer high-stakes run-out attempts and evolving umpire training focused on player safety and game flow. The first such dismissal occurred on June 10, 2018, during the final of the Women's T20 Asia Cup between and in . Indian batter Anuja Patil was given out for 3 after changing direction mid-pitch to block a throw from Bangladeshi fielder aimed at the stumps, preventing a potential of non-striker . Referred to the third , the decision was upheld despite initial over intent, marking the first obstructing the field dismissal in WT20I and contributing to India's four-wicket defeat in a last-ball thriller. The second instance took place on April 22, 2022, during the fourth match of the Women's Tri-Series in , . Mary-Anne Musonda was dismissed for 21 after defending a delivery from Uganda's Janet Mbabazi that rolled towards the keeper; as she backed up, Musonda accidentally kicked the ball away, obstructing the fielders. The on-field umpires upheld Uganda's appeal under Law 37, despite debate over whether the action was willful, in a match won by 22 runs (127/5 vs 105/6). The third instance occurred on February 10, 2024, in the Women's Premier Cup in , . opener Shanzeen Shahzad was dismissed for 0 off 1 ball against after obstructing a fielder's path to the ball during an early running attempt, resulting in an upheld appeal by the umpires. This case underscored the rule's application in associate-nation matches, where T20I growth has increased scrutiny on fielding dynamics. No reversals have occurred in WT20I obstructing cases to date, as the dismissal relies heavily on on-field judgment rather than technology for intent assessment. With the expansion of WT20Is through events like the , instances may rise, but umpires continue to prioritize non-dismissal outcomes unless deliberate obstruction is evident, maintaining the rule's role as a deterrent rather than a frequent penalty. This contrasts with slightly higher occurrences in Women's ODIs, where longer formats allow more deliberate actions.

Recent and Domestic Instances

Notable Domestic League Cases

In the (IPL), obstructing the field dismissals have been rare but memorable, often occurring in high-pressure moments. The first such instance happened on May 15, 2013, during the match between and at , where was given out after kicking a away with his foot while attempting a run, preventing the fielder from collecting it; this marked the inaugural obstructing the field dismissal in IPL and T20 history. Six years later, on May 8, 2019, in the IPL Eliminator between and at , was dismissed for changing direction during a run and allowing his outstretched arm to obstruct a throw aimed at the stumps, with Delhi needing just two runs off three balls. Most recently, on May 12, 2024, in the IPL clash between and at , was adjudged out after a misfield hit him on the back, prompting him to block the subsequent throw from wicketkeeper ; the third umpire upheld the appeal on review, giving Jadeja out for obstructing the field under Law 37. Beyond the IPL, obstructing the field has surfaced in other prominent domestic T20 leagues, underscoring its scarcity even in fast-paced formats. In the (BBL), of became the first player dismissed this way on January 10, 2018, against at , when he after it stopped near him during a attempt, leading to widespread debate on the spirit of the game. In English county cricket, such dismissals remain exceptionally uncommon due to the format's emphasis on first-class play, but a notable example occurred on June 14, 2023, in the Division One match between and at , where Kimber was given out for picking up the ball with his hand after it lodged near his foot, obstructing the fielder's retrieval. These incidents in T20 domestic leagues like the IPL and highlight trends driven by the format's high stakes and rapid decision-making, where split-second actions can lead to appeals under Law 37, which prohibits willful obstruction or distraction of the fielding side. Such dismissals serve an educational role, reminding players of the rule's boundaries and occasionally resulting in fines under league codes of conduct for unsportsmanlike behavior, as seen in post-match reviews of the and Ross cases.

Controversies and Non-Dismissals Post-2020

Several non-calls in the 2024 IPL season, such as potential obstructions during quick singles in matches involving and , went unappealed despite fielding sides having opportunities to challenge batters' paths, contributing to perceptions of leniency in T20 formats where pace often overrides scrutiny. Unusual dismissals, including obstructing the field, have notably increased in T20Is due to the format's emphasis on rapid running between wickets. Umpire adjudication remains key, prioritizing accidental obstructions as to preserve the game's fairness. In September 2025, during the Australia One-Day Cup match between and , survived an appeal for obstructing the field after inadvertently disrupting a attempt while batting on his way to a century, sparking debate on intent in domestic limited-overs cricket.

References

  1. [1]
    Leg Before Wicket – The Laws Of Cricket | Lord's
    A batter shall not be out Obstructing the field if the obstruction or distraction is accidental, or the obstruction is in order to avoid injury, or in the case ...
  2. [2]
    Men's Test Match Clause 37: Obstructing The Field - ICC Cricket
    Sep 28, 2017 · Obstructing the field includes wilful distraction, striking the ball with a non-bat hand, changing direction to avoid run out, preventing a ...
  3. [3]
    Obstructing the field: How it works in cricket, case studies
    Dec 22, 2023 · Obstructing the field, a form of dismissal, refers to a batter intentionally blocking the bowling side from taking a catch, field, throw or hitting the stumps.
  4. [4]
    Explained: Obstructing the field law | cricket.com.au
    Feb 25, 2024 · Law 37.1.1: Either batter is out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Laws of Cricket 2017 Code (2nd Edition - 2019)
    Law 32 – Bowled. Law 33 – Caught. Law 34 – Hit the ball twice. Law 35 – Hit wicket. Law 36 – Leg before wicket. Law 37 – Obstructing the field. Law 38 – Run out.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Summary of changes to the Laws of Cricket 2017 Code
    Marylebone Cricket Club lords.org. LAW 37 - Obstructing the field. LAW 38 - Run out. LAW 39 - Stumped. LAW 40 - Timed out. (previously Law 31). As explained ...
  7. [7]
    New gender-neutral cricket laws officially released by MCC
    Apr 11, 2017 · The handled the ball law has been deleted altogether and merged with the obstructing the field law, and likewise the more obscure lost ball law ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Laws of Cricket 2017 Code - 3rd Edition 2022
    13. LAW 37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD. 37.1 Out Obstructing the field. 37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and.
  9. [9]
    [PDF] ICC MEN'S TEST MATCH PLAYING CONDITIONS
    37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD. 37.1. Out Obstructing the field. 37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause 37.2,.
  10. [10]
    Unfair Play – The Laws Of Cricket | Lord's
    Law 41 ... award any other 5-run Penalty that is applicable except for Penalty runs under Law 28.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side).Missing: field | Show results with:field
  11. [11]
    Important Matches - Early Cricket
    Dartford, London, Dartford Brent, Dartford. 53, 05 Jul 1731, London, Dartford ... 1761, Chertsey, Dartford, Laleham Burway Cricket Ground, Laleham Burway. 322, 31 ...
  12. [12]
    The Laws of Cricket
    The approach of this page is to present a chronological sequence of the developments of the Laws of the game.
  13. [13]
    Laws of Cricket 1947 Code (Fourth Edition) - Law 40
    Either Batsman is out "Obstructing the field" - If he wilfully obstruct the opposite side; should such wilful obstruction by either Batsman prevent a ball from ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] LAW CHANGES 2022 - North West Cricket Union
    However, until now, any member of the fielding side who moved unfairly, was punished only with a 'Dead ball' – potentially cancelling a perfectly good shot by ...
  15. [15]
    Laws of Cricket (Various Versions)
    ### Summary of Obstructing the Field Law Across Codes
  16. [16]
    ENG vs SA Cricket Scorecard, 5th Test at London, August 16
    L Hutton became the first batsman to be dismissed obstructing the field in Tests. After top edging a ball, he played at it a second time to defend it from ...
  17. [17]
    Len Hutton becomes first to be given obstructing the field in Test ...
    Jun 22, 2015 · Len Hutton, in an attempt to save his wicket, became the first batsman to be given out obstructing the field.
  18. [18]
    Obstructing the field: as contentious a dismissal today as it was in ...
    Jan 16, 2018 · Whether in the Big Bash in 2018 or an English county game 125 years ago, when a batsman is given out obstructing the field it always feels ...
  19. [19]
    20 Aug 1951 - TEST PRECEDENT IN DISMISSAL OF LEN HUTTON
    LONDON (A.A.P.).— For the time in the history of test cricket player, Len Hutton (England) was out for "obstructing the field." ...
  20. [20]
    ON THIS DAY: 32-7 declared and Hutton batting at eight
    Dec 4, 2017 · Today's tale is about a Brisbane flood, Len Hutton batting at eight and a declaration at 32 for seven.Missing: obstructing field<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    A case of obstruction, and stopping Laker taking all 20 | ESPNcricinfo
    Feb 20, 2006 · The only man to be out obstructing the field in a Test match is England's Len Hutton, against South Africa at The Oval in 1951. Hutton top ...
  22. [22]
    Why Mushfiqur Rahim was out for obstructing the field and not ...
    Dec 6, 2023 · Mushfiqur Rahim became the first Bangladesh batter to be given out obstructing the field in Test cricket, on the first day of the second Test against New ...
  23. [23]
    Mushfiqur becomes just second Test batter to be dismissed ... - BBC
    Dec 6, 2023 · Bangladesh's Mushfiqur Rahim became only the second Test batter in history to be dismissed for obstructing the field on the opening day of the second Test ...
  24. [24]
    Explained: Mushfiqur Rahim's obstructing the field dismissal
    Rating 4.4 (72,158) · FreeDec 6, 2023 · Bangladesh wicketkeeper-batter Mushfiqur Rahim was given out, obstructing the field during the opening day of the second Test against New Zealand in Dhaka.
  25. [25]
    Explained: Why Mushfiqur Rahim was given out against New Zealand
    Dec 6, 2023 · Mushfiqur was given out obstructing the field in the 41st over, leaving his side five down as he became only the first Bangladesh Men's ...
  26. [26]
    The new cricket rule changes coming into effect from September 28
    Sep 26, 2017 · A player can now be sent off the field by the umpire for the rest of a match for serious misconduct. This will apply to most Level 4 offences, ...
  27. [27]
    BAN vs NZ Cricket Scorecard, 2nd Test at Dhaka, December 06 - 09, 2023
    **Mushfiqur Rahim's Dismissal Details (2nd Test, Dhaka, Dec 06-09, 2023):**
  28. [28]
    Test matches | Batting records | Unusual dismissals - ESPNcricinfo
    Unusual dismissals in Tests ; L Hutton. obstructing the field, 27, England, v South Africa ; WR Endean. handled the ball, 3, South Africa, v England ...
  29. [29]
    batters dismissed obstructing the field - ESPNcricinfo
    batters dismissed obstructing the field in full detail, with cricket stats, records and other answers related to this question.
  30. [30]
    PAK vs IND Cricket Scorecard, 1st ODI at Peshawar, February 06 ...
    Inzamam-ul-Haq (c). obstructing the field, 16, 19, 32, 2, 0, 84.21. obstructing the field. Younis Khan. not out, 18, 16, 39, 3, 0, 112.50. not out. Abdul Razzaq.Missing: date | Show results with:date
  31. [31]
    Explained: Obstructing the field law | cricket.com.au
    Feb 25, 2024 · Obstructing the field is a broad term that covers several aspects of the batter involving themselves in the playing of the ball after the action resulting from ...Missing: 36 merged
  32. [32]
    T20I matches | Batting records | Unusual dismissals - ESPNcricinfo
    Unusual dismissals in T20Is ; C Bogdanos. retired out, 25 ; Mohamed Azzam. obstructing the field, 11 ; H Lin Oo. obstructing the field, 1 ; Ali Naseer. retired out ...
  33. [33]
    Morris the spark as SA steal three-run win - ESPNcricinfo
    Jun 23, 2017 · The dismissal of Jason Roy, given out for obstructing the field, changed the course of a game that England appeared to have won and saw South ...
  34. [34]
    List Of Players Who Got Out For Obstructing The Field
    Mar 14, 2025 · Below is a list of cricketers who have been given out for obstructing the field in Test, ODI, T20I, and IPL matches, arranged from the most recent to the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Men's T20I Match Clause 37: Obstructing the Field - ICC Cricket
    Oct 2, 2017 · A batsman shall not be out Obstructing the field if obstruction or distraction is accidental, or obstruction is in order to avoid injury.<|control11|><|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Obstructing the field - Wikipedia
    Either batsman can be given out if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. It is Law 37 of the Laws of cricket, and is ...
  37. [37]
    https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/obstructing-the-field-controversy-at-lords-was-tammy-beaumont-out-in-the-2nd-odi-against-india-heres-the-law-10137286/
  38. [38]
    Beaumont obstructing the field appeal evokes memories of Dean ...
    Jul 19, 2025 · Beaumont's left foot was grounded inside her crease as she brought her right leg forward and the ball ricocheted off her pad as wicketkeeper ...
  39. [39]
    Obstructing the field controversy at Lord's: Was Tammy Beaumont ...
    Jul 19, 2025 · It was a throwback to another controversial moment at Lord's between India and England in a women's ODI that took place in September 2022.Missing: 2023 2024
  40. [40]
    ENG-W vs IND-W, 2nd ODI: Why was Tammy Beaumont not given ...
    Jul 19, 2025 · The rule 37.1.1 of the playing conditions states that, “Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause ...
  41. [41]
    India appeal for obstructing the field against England's Tammy ...
    Jul 20, 2025 · India appealed for obstructing the field during the 2nd ODI against England at Lord's. Here's what the law says. | Cricket.
  42. [42]
    Women T20I matches | Batting records | Unusual dismissals
    Unusual dismissals in WT20Is ; AA Patil. obstructing the field, 3, India Women, v BAN Women ; Aisya Eleesa. retired out, 13, Mas Women, v SGP Women ...
  43. [43]
    Rare dismissal helps Bangladesh stun India | cricket.com.au
    Jun 11, 2018 · India's Anuja Patil became the first woman in T20 internationals to be given out obstructing the field as Bangladesh pulled off an upset ...
  44. [44]
    KKR vs PWI Cricket Scorecard, 65th match at Ranchi, May 15, 2013
    Yusuf Pathan. obstructing the field, 72, 44, 70, 8, 2, 163.63. obstructing the field. Ryan ten Doeschate. run out (Murtaza/†Uthappa), 42, 30, 51, 4, 1, 140.00.
  45. [45]
    M65: KKR vs PWI – Yusuf Pathan out Obstructing the Field - IPL
    M65: KKR vs PWI – Yusuf Pathan out Obstructing the Field. 05 Mar, 2015| 6.9k| 01:26 mins. Share video on : Copy. Related Videos. Previous. img. IPL 2025 ...
  46. [46]
    IPL 2019: Amit Mishra given out obstructing the field - Sportstar
    May 8, 2019 · Amit Mishra and Keemo Paul had brought the equation down to two off four balls when Mishra was given out for obstruction of field.Missing: RCB | Show results with:RCB
  47. [47]
    Is Ravindra Jadeja the first player to be out obstructing the field in ...
    Ravindra Jadeja was given out obstructing the field for getting in the way of Sanju Samson's throw at the stumps, the third instance of this dismissal in the ...
  48. [48]
    BBL: Alex Ross run-out obstructing the field dismissal video
    Jan 11, 2018 · IT'S the Big Bash League dismissal which sent social media into meltdown and split public opinion. When the Brisbane Heat's Alex Ross was ...
  49. [49]
    Watch: Unfortunate reflex or obstruction? Louis Kimber given out ...
    Jun 14, 2023 · Louis Kimber of Leicestershire was given out obstructing the field in a County Championship match against Gloucestershire.
  50. [50]
    In Bizarre Manner, Batter Gets Dismissed For 'Obstructing The Field ...
    Jun 14, 2023 · Have you ever seen anything like this? Leicestershire five down after Louis Kimber is given out obstructing the field! Leics 258/5, trailing by ...
  51. [51]
    Mushfiqur Rahim becomes first Bangladesh batter to be dismissed ...
    Mushfiqur Rahim became the first Bangladesh batter to be dismissed obstructing the field during day one of the second Bangladesh vs New Zealand Test match.
  52. [52]
    'Lucky Nobody Appealed' – Could Virat Kohli Have Been Given Out ...
    Feb 23, 2025 · Had Pakistan appealed, Virat Kohli might have been given out obstructing the field in the Champions Trophy 2025 India vs Pakistan game at Dubai.
  53. [53]
    Virat Kohli Survives 'Obstructing The Field' Dismissal, Leaves Sunil ...
    Feb 24, 2025 · Virat Kohli received a massive lifeline as he survived an 'obstructing the field' dismissal during the Champions Trophy 2025 encounter against Pakistan in ...
  54. [54]
    List of unusual dismissals in international cricket - Wikipedia
    In December 2023, Mushfiqur Rahim became the first person in test cricket to be dismissed for obstructing the field since the rule for handling the ball was ...
  55. [55]
    What Do The Laws Say? Marnus Labuschagne Survives In ... - Wisden
    Sep 17, 2025 · In this case, the umpires ruled that Labuschagne did not wilfully obstruct or distract the fielding side, potentially because he was not aware ...