Obstructing the Field in Cricket: Cricket's Rarest Dismissal Explained

Cricket has ten recognised methods of dismissal. Most fans could rattle off the common ones without hesitation — bowled, caught, LBW, run out, stumped. But obstructing the field sits at the very bottom of the list in terms of frequency. It is so rare that many devoted fans have never seen it happen in a match they were watching, yet it is a fully legitimate dismissal with a detailed law behind it and a handful of genuinely dramatic real-world instances.

This guide explains everything you need to know about obstructing the field — what it is, how Law 37 defines it, when it has actually been used, and how it relates to the now-merged handling the ball dismissal.

---

What is Obstructing the Field?

Obstructing the field is a dismissal in cricket where a batsman is given out for deliberately hindering or distracting a fielder who is attempting to field the ball or complete a dismissal. The key word is deliberately. A batsman who accidentally gets in the way of a fielder is not guilty of obstructing the field. The law requires wilful, intentional interference.

The dismissal can occur in a variety of scenarios:

• A batsman physically blocks a fielder from getting to the ball
• A batsman uses a hand or bat to deflect a throw that is heading toward the stumps
• A batsman shouts or makes noise specifically to distract a fielder in the act of catching
• A batsman deliberately changes their running line to run into a fielder attempting a catch or run-out

There is also a specific sub-category that was incorporated into Law 37 after 2017: if a batsman wilfully strikes the ball a second time with their hand (not their bat), it now falls under obstructing the field rather than the old "handled the ball" law. We will cover that distinction separately.

---

How Often Does It Happen?

In the entire history of men's Test cricket, obstructing the field has resulted in a dismissal on only a handful of occasions. The number is so small it can be counted on one hand. Even in all forms of international cricket combined, the total barely reaches double figures across more than a century of the game.

To put that in perspective: a Test series between two nations might produce 800 or more individual dismissals across the five matches. Obstructing the field accounts for fewer than a dozen of those across all Test cricket ever played.

Why so rare? Several reasons. First, batsmen are generally focused on protecting their wicket and scoring runs — they are not typically thinking about what fielders are doing behind them. Second, the bar of proof for "deliberate" action is high. Third, even when something ambiguous happens, fielding teams often choose not to appeal because the social awkwardness of appealing for such an unusual mode of dismissal — and the reputational risk of a failed appeal — can make captains hesitant.

---

Law 37 Explained

Law 37 of the Laws of Cricket (as codified by the Marylebone Cricket Club, or MCC) governs obstructing the field. The law has two main limbs.

Limb one — wilful obstruction of a fielder. A batsman is out if either batsman wilfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action. This covers the scenario of physically blocking a fielder, shouting to distract a fielder taking a catch, or running deliberately into a throw.

Limb two — striker obstructing a catch. If the striker (the batsman facing the ball) deliberately obstructs a fielder who is attempting to catch the ball, the striker is out. This applies even if the obstruction is carried out by the non-striker running across to interfere.

Importantly, Law 37 also specifies that if a batsman wilfully strikes the ball a second time with a hand not holding the bat, that falls under obstructing the field (this was previously the separate "handled the ball" dismissal under Law 33, which was merged into Law 37 in the 2017 revision of the Laws).

The deliberateness test: Umpires and match officials assess whether the action was wilful. If a batsman accidentally blocks a fielder's path while legitimately completing a run, that is not obstruction. The batsman must have consciously chosen to interfere.

The fielding side must appeal for the dismissal in the normal way. The umpire is under no obligation to give a batsman out for obstruction without an appeal, even if the umpire has clearly seen deliberate interference.

---

Famous Obstructing the Field Dismissals

Despite its rarity, obstructing the field has produced some memorable and controversial moments across cricket history.

Len Hutton — England vs South Africa, 1951. One of the most famous instances of the dismissal. The legendary England opener Len Hutton was given out obstructing the field after he used his hand to deflect a ball that was heading toward his stumps. Hutton had scored 27 runs at the time. It was the first such dismissal in a Test match and caused considerable debate at the time about whether the law had been correctly applied.

Inzamam-ul-Haq — Pakistan vs India, 2006. Perhaps the most well-known modern example. During a ODI, Inzamam was given out obstructing the field after a direct-throw attempt was heading for his stumps and he deflected it with his hand. His dismissal — with Pakistan needing runs in a chase — was hugely controversial and widely replayed. Inzamam maintained the action was instinctive rather than deliberate. Pakistan lost the match.

Rameez Raja — Australia vs Pakistan, 1987 World Cup. Rameez Raja was given out obstructing the field during the 1987 World Cup, one of the few dismissals of this type in multi-team ICC events.

These cases collectively underline the pattern: most real-world instances of the dismissal involve a batsman deflecting a ball or throw aimed at the stumps using a hand or body movement, rather than the more theatrical scenarios (shouting at a fielder, deliberately running into a catch) that the law also covers.

---

How It Differs from Handling the Ball

For many years, cricket had a separate dismissal called "handled the ball" under Law 33, which dealt specifically with a batsman touching the ball with a hand that was not holding the bat without the permission of the fielding side.

In 2017, the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket and merged handling the ball into Law 37, making it a sub-category of obstructing the field. The rationale was simple: handling the ball is, fundamentally, a specific form of obstructing the field. Why maintain a separate law for a sub-case when the parent law already exists?

The practical effect is that since 2017, all dismissals in the "handled the ball" category are now recorded and scored as "obstructing the field." Historic dismissals from before 2017 are still listed as "handled the ball" in records, but no new "handled the ball" dismissals can occur under the current Laws.

We cover this change and its history in detail in our article on the handled the ball dismissal.

---

Can a Fielder Obstruct the Batsman?

The law protects fielders from interference by batsmen — but what about the reverse? Can a fielder obstruct a batsman?

Yes, and this is covered under Law 26 (Fielder Obstruction) and the penalty runs rules. If a fielder deliberately obstructs a batsman who is running between wickets, the fielding team can be penalised five penalty runs awarded to the batting side. The batsman who was obstructed is not given out and the batting side benefits from the penalty.

This is also rare in practice, but it does happen — most commonly when a fielder running to field the ball accidentally impedes a batsman running between the wickets, or when a fielder deliberately stands in the batting side's running lane to slow down a run. The umpires have authority to award penalty runs in these situations.

The asymmetry is interesting: a batsman who obstructs a fielder can be dismissed (losing their wicket), while a fielder who obstructs a batsman results in penalty runs (no dismissal). This reflects cricket's fundamental design principle that the batting side's wickets are precious and the loss of one is the most severe sanction in the game.

---

When Would a Captain Appeal?

If deliberate obstruction occurs, why don't captains always appeal? The answer is partly cultural and partly strategic.

Cultural hesitation. There is a long tradition in cricket of gentlemanly conduct and the "spirit of cricket." Many captains feel that appealing for obstructing the field — particularly in scenarios where the obstruction appeared accidental or where the batsman's action was ambiguous — is unsporting. The reputational cost of being seen to pursue the opposition via obscure laws can outweigh the tactical benefit of a wicket.

Strategic calculation. A captain will weigh up whether the appeal is likely to succeed. Given that umpires require clear evidence of deliberate intent, an ambiguous case may result in the appeal being rejected, which wastes time, disrupts the fielding team's concentration, and may harden the opposition's resolve.

When appeals are more likely. Captains are most likely to appeal for obstructing the field when the interference is blatant and clearly deliberate — particularly when a batsman has obviously used their hand to deflect a direct-hit throw aimed at the stumps. In those cases, the evidence is clear, the fielding team has been unambiguously denied a run-out, and the appeal is entirely justified.

As a general rule: the more obvious and deliberate the obstruction, the more likely a professional captain is to appeal. The more ambiguous the situation, the more likely they are to let it go.

---

Quick Reference Table

Rule	Detail
Governing law	Law 37 (MCC Laws of Cricket)
Type of dismissal	Batsman out — obstructing the field
Who can be dismissed	Either batsman (striker or non-striker)
Key requirement	Action must be wilful (deliberate)
Does fielding team need to appeal?	Yes
Covered scenarios	Physical blocking, vocal distraction, deflecting a throw with hand
Handling the ball merged into this law?	Yes — since 2017 MCC revision
How common in Tests?	Fewer than 10 instances in all Test history
Penalty runs alternative?	No — dismissal is the only outcome (penalty runs apply to fielder obstruction, not this law)
DRS applicable?	Yes — fielding team can review if on-field umpire rejects appeal

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a batsman be given out obstructing the field without any appeal? No. Like all dismissals in cricket, obstructing the field requires an appeal by the fielding side. The umpire will not give a batsman out under Law 37 unless the fielding team appeals in the normal way.

Does the obstruction have to be physical, or can shouting count? Both physical and vocal interference can constitute obstruction under Law 37. If a batsman shouts specifically to distract a fielder who is attempting a catch or making a throw, that can qualify as obstructing the field. However, shouting that happens coincidentally during the course of play — not specifically aimed at distracting a fielder — would not normally be considered deliberate obstruction.

If a batsman deflects a throw with their bat, is that obstructing the field? This is a nuanced area. Using the bat to deflect a ball aimed at the stumps can be considered obstructing the field if the deflection is deliberate. However, if the bat is in a normal batting position and the ball hits it incidentally, it is far less likely to be judged as wilful interference. The key is intent.

Is there a difference between obstructing the field and running on the pitch deliberately? Yes. Running on the pitch — which damages the playing surface — is a separate offence governed by Law 42 (Unfair Play) and results in warnings and, ultimately, penalty runs, not a dismissal. It is not the same as obstructing the field.

Has obstructing the field ever been given in a T20 international? Instances in T20 internationals are extremely rare. The shorter format's faster pace means batsmen are focused on running quickly rather than engaging with fielders, reducing the opportunities for obstruction to occur. However, the law applies equally to all formats of the game.

---

Conclusion

Obstructing the field is the cricket dismissal that most fans hope they never have to adjudicate on. Its rarity makes it fascinating — when it does occur, it generates debate, controversy, and hours of post-match analysis about whether the act was truly deliberate.

Law 37 is clear in its intent: protect the fielding side's ability to field the ball and take wickets without interference from the batting side. Its incorporation of the old "handled the ball" law since 2017 has made it a broader, more unified rule covering all forms of deliberate interference by batsmen.

Understanding this law deepens your appreciation of cricket's complexity. For more explanations of cricket's lesser-known rules, browse our full cricket rules guide.

---

Sources:

• MCC Laws of Cricket — Law 37: Obstructing the Field
• ESPNcricinfo — Dismissal types explained
• ICC Playing Conditions