Handled the Ball Dismissal in Cricket: Is It Still a Rule?

Cricket is a game with ten ways to get out. Until 2017, one of those ten was a dismissal that could only be triggered by a batsman doing something almost no batsman ever did intentionally: touching the ball with their hand. It was called "handled the ball," it lived under Law 33, and it has now been removed from the Laws as a standalone dismissal.

But is the rule really gone? Or has it simply changed its name? And what does this mean for players today?

This guide covers the full history of the handled the ball dismissal, the famous cases it produced, the 2017 law change, and how wilful interference with the ball is treated in modern cricket.

---

What Was Handled the Ball?

Handled the ball was a method of dismissal in cricket where a batsman was given out for wilfully touching the ball with a hand that was not holding the bat, without the permission of the fielding side. The dismissal applied to both the striker (the batsman facing the ball) and the non-striker.

The key elements were:

• The batsman used a hand to touch or move the ball
• The hand in question was not the one holding the bat
• The action was wilful — not accidental
• The fielding side did not give permission for the batsman to handle the ball

There were legitimate situations where a batsman could handle the ball with permission. If a ball was rolling toward a batsman's injured ankle or toward something else of concern, a fielder or umpire could give permission for the batsman to move the ball. In those cases, no dismissal occurred.

The law covered the striker's bottom hand (the hand that grips the lower part of the bat handle) touching the ball after it had been played, as well as a batsman picking up the ball and returning it to a fielder — even a well-intentioned act of sportsmanship that the fielding side had not sanctioned.

---

When Was It Removed From the Laws?

The handled the ball dismissal was removed from the Laws of Cricket in October 2017, when the MCC released a comprehensive revision of the Laws — the first major overhaul since 2000.

The 2017 revision removed Law 33 (Handled the Ball) as a separate, standalone law. Instead, the conduct previously covered by Law 33 was absorbed into Law 37 (Obstructing the Field). From October 2017 onwards, a batsman who wilfully touches the ball with their hand is dismissed under "obstructing the field" rather than "handled the ball."

Scorecards and records before 2017 still show dismissals as "handled the ball." Any such incident occurring after October 2017 is recorded as "obstructing the field."

---

What Replaced It in the Laws?

The 2017 MCC revision created an expanded Law 37 (Obstructing the Field) that covers all forms of deliberate interference by a batsman with the fielding side, including:

• Physically blocking a fielder
• Vocally distracting a fielder attempting a catch
• Deliberately deflecting a throw aimed at the stumps
• Wilfully touching the ball with a hand not holding the bat (formerly handled the ball)

The rationale from the MCC was logical and tidy: handled the ball was always a specific sub-category of obstructing the field. A batsman who picks up the ball and moves it is, by definition, interfering with the fielding side's ability to field the ball. Having two separate laws covering overlapping ground created unnecessary complexity. Merging them into a single, broader Law 37 simplified the Laws without removing any protection for the fielding side.

For a full explanation of how Law 37 works today, see our guide on obstructing the field in cricket.

---

Famous Handled the Ball Dismissals

Despite its rarity, handled the ball produced several notable dismissals across cricket history.

Graham Gooch — England vs Australia, 1993. One of the most famous handled the ball dismissals in Test history. England's Graham Gooch, one of the finest batsmen of his generation, played the ball from Merv Hughes and then, believing the ball was about to land on his stumps, used his hand to knock it away. Australia appealed and Gooch was given out. It was a significant moment — Gooch was England's captain at the time, and his dismissal in that manner was unexpected and heavily discussed. Notably, Australia chose to appeal, which was itself somewhat unusual for such a rare mode of dismissal.

Mohinder Amarnath — India vs Sri Lanka, 1985. Amarnath was given out handled the ball during a one-day series, one of the few instances of the dismissal in limited-overs cricket of that era.

Michael Vaughan — England vs India, 2001-02. Vaughan was given out handled the ball during England's tour of India. A ball had lodged under his pad and Vaughan used his hand to dislodge it — a natural, instinctive reaction, but one that the fielding side (India) appealed for, and the umpire upheld the decision.

Steve Waugh — Australia vs South Africa, 1999. Steve Waugh, Australia's captain at the time, was given out handled the ball after touching the ball with his hand. The appeal by South Africa was successful and Waugh lost his wicket in an unusual fashion.

Each of these cases shares a common feature: the batsman's action was instinctive rather than strategically premeditated, yet it still met the legal threshold of "wilful" under the law of the time.

---

Why Was the Rule Changed?

The MCC offered several reasons for merging handled the ball into obstructing the field in 2017.

Simplification. The Laws of Cricket had grown organically over centuries, and some areas contained redundancy. Handled the ball was a specific instance of a broader category of behaviour. Merging them simplified the code without altering the fundamental protections the laws provided.

Alignment with intent. The purpose of the handled the ball law was always to prevent batsmen from deliberately interfering with the ball to deny the fielding side a wicket or to prevent penalty runs. That purpose is identical to the purpose of obstructing the field. Making them a single law aligned the text of the Laws with their shared intent.

Clarity for dismissal recording. Under the new system, scorers have a single category to record any batsman interference with the ball. The proliferation of rare dismissal types — handled the ball, obstructing the field, hit the ball twice — had historically created confusion in scorecards and record-keeping.

The change was broadly welcomed by cricket administrators and commentators, though some traditionalists expressed mild nostalgia for the old Law 33 as a distinct entity.

---

What Counts as Wilful Obstruction?

With the merger into Law 37, the concept of "wilful" action is now central to all batsman-interference dismissals. Understanding what "wilful" means in practice is essential.

Wilful means intentional. The batsman must consciously choose to touch or move the ball, or physically obstruct a fielder. An accidental collision with a fielder, or a ball that happens to hit a batsman's trailing hand, is not wilful obstruction.

Instinct complicates the picture. Many real-world cases sit in a grey area. When Graham Gooch knocked the ball away from his stumps with his hand, was that a deliberate decision or a reflex? Cricket law does not require that the batsman planned the action in advance — it only requires that the action itself was a voluntary, conscious movement. Courts in other legal contexts have grappled with similar questions about instinctive versus deliberate action, and cricket umpires face the same challenge.

The umpire's judgement. Ultimately, the on-field umpire (and the third umpire, if DRS is used) must determine whether the action was wilful. There is no fixed test beyond the umpire's assessment of what they observed. This is one reason why the dismissal has always been rare: umpires are cautious about giving batsmen out on a charge of deliberate intent unless the evidence is clear.

Permission changes everything. If a fielder gives explicit permission for the batsman to handle the ball — to move it away from an injured ankle, for example — no dismissal is possible. The fielding side's consent removes the wilful obstruction element entirely.

---

How This Affects Players Today

For players competing in 2026, the practical effect of the 2017 law change is straightforward: do not touch the ball with your hand unless a fielder gives you permission to do so. The underlying prohibition is identical to what it was under the old Law 33 — only the legal label has changed.

A few practical scenarios players should be aware of:

Ball rolling toward the stumps. If a batsman plays the ball and it rolls back toward the stumps, the batsman's instinct may be to knock it away with their hand. This is precisely the scenario that triggered several famous handled the ball cases. Players should be aware that this action, however instinctive, can result in dismissal under Law 37.

Ball lodged under the pad. If a ball becomes lodged under a batsman's pad, the batsman should wait for the fielding side to retrieve it or ask the umpire's permission before using their hand to dislodge it.

Ball returned to a fielder. Even a friendly act of picking up the ball and returning it to the nearest fielder is technically a potential Law 37 violation if the fielding side has not given permission. In practice, fielding captains never appeal in these circumstances, and the spirit of cricket is generally observed — but the technical prohibition exists.

For teams and coaches, the lesson is simple: train batsmen to be aware of their hands' proximity to a live ball and to always seek permission from a fielder or umpire before touching it.

---

Quick Reference Table

Rule	Detail
Old law	Law 33 — Handled the Ball (now removed)
Current law	Law 37 — Obstructing the Field
Change made	October 2017 (MCC Laws revision)
Core prohibition	Wilfully touching ball with hand not holding bat (without fielding side's permission)
Key requirement	Action must be wilful
Does fielding team need to appeal?	Yes
Permission exception	Fielding side can give consent; no dismissal if permission granted
Historic dismissals recorded as	"Handled the Ball" (pre-2017)
Post-2017 dismissals recorded as	"Obstructing the Field"
How common?	Fewer than 15 instances in all Test history before 2017

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Is handled the ball still in the Laws of Cricket? No. As a standalone law, it was removed in the October 2017 MCC revision. The conduct it covered — wilfully touching the ball with a hand not holding the bat — is now covered under Law 37 (Obstructing the Field). Dismissals for this action since 2017 are recorded as "obstructing the field."

Can a batsman pick up the ball and hand it to a fielder without being given out? Technically, picking up the ball without permission from the fielding side violates Law 37. In practice, friendly ball-retrieval rarely results in an appeal. But the batsman is always safer to wait for the fielding side to retrieve the ball rather than touching it themselves.

If handled the ball is no longer a separate law, do records still count? Yes. Historical handled the ball dismissals in scorecards remain valid and are not retroactively reclassified. They are listed as "handled the ball" in historical records. Only dismissals occurring after October 2017 must be recorded as "obstructing the field."

Could a batsman be given out for using their glove (still on the bat hand) to stop the ball? If the glove is on the hand holding the bat, touching the ball with that gloved hand is not automatically a violation. The prohibition is specifically about the hand not holding the bat. However, deliberately using even the bat-hand's glove to obstruct a fielder could still fall under the broader obstruction provisions of Law 37.

Has any batsman been given out under the new Law 37 for touching the ball since 2017? Instances remain extremely rare since 2017, as they were before. Players in professional cricket are now more aware of the law change and more cautious about touching the ball. The underlying behaviour — touching the ball with the hand — has not become more common, so the rarity of the dismissal continues.

---

Conclusion

Handled the ball is one of cricket's great historical curiosities — a law that existed for well over a century, was invoked fewer than two dozen times in all Test cricket, and was finally absorbed into a broader obstruction law in 2017. The stories it left behind — Graham Gooch's famous dismissal, Steve Waugh's surprising exit — are part of cricket's rich and unusual history.

For players today, the legal landscape is simpler: Law 37 governs all deliberate interference with the ball or the fielding side. The prohibition is the same. The label has changed.

To understand the full context of rare dismissals and unusual laws in cricket, explore our complete cricket rules guide.

---

Sources:

• MCC Laws of Cricket — Law 37: Obstructing the Field
• MCC 2017 Laws Revision — Changes Summary
• ESPNcricinfo — Famous Handled the Ball Dismissals