London [UK], April 30 : Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has issued a law clarification relating to obstruction of the field, following a recent incident in the Indian Premier League (IPL) in which KKR batter Angkrish Raghuvanshi was given out during the match against Lucknow Super Giants.

The incident occurred in the fifth over of Kolkata Knight Riders' innings when Raghuvanshi was adjudged out for obstructing the field. After the decision, he was seen reacting in frustration, hitting the boundary cushion with his bat and later throwing his helmet into the dugout.

IPL later said that Raghuvanshi had committed a Level 1 offence under Article 2.2 of the Code of Conduct. The rule pertains to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during a match." He was fined 20 per cent of his match fee and handed one demerit point.

Since the dismissal, the decision has sparked debate over whether the batter should have been given out or not out for obstructing the field. MCC has now issued clarification regarding Raghuvanshi's Obstructing the Field dismissal.

According to the MCC, Law 37.1.1 says that either batter is out Obstructing the Field if they "wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action." That means that the obstruction must be deliberate, which can be hard to determine.

"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.

According to MCC, Raghuvanshi 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, 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.

"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.

MCC said there have been some suggestions that Raghuvanshi should not have been given out because he would have made his ground even if the throw had not hit him.

"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.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor