Cricket's Rare Dismissals: Obstructing the Field, Handled the Ball, and Timed Out
The rarest dismissals in cricket — obstructing the field, handled the ball, timed out — what each means under the Laws, and the handful of times they have occurred in international cricket.
Cricket has ten methods of dismissal under the Laws: bowled, timed out, caught, handled the ball, hit the ball twice, hit wicket, leg before wicket, obstructing the field, run out, and stumped. The first six are the routine dismissals; the last four — timed out, handled the ball, hit the ball twice, and obstructing the field — are so rare that many cricket fans have never seen one in international cricket. Understanding what they mean explains how cricket's Laws cover edge cases in the game.
Obstructing the Field
A batter is out obstructing the field if they wilfully obstruct a fielder — physically blocking a fielder attempting to field the ball or make a catch, or handling the ball in a way that prevents the fielding side from making a dismissal. The MCC 2017 Laws revision merged 'handled the ball' into 'obstructing the field' — making any deliberate use of the hand to stop a ball now falls under one category. In modern cricket, the most common form is a batter deliberately hitting a caught ball away from a fielder's reach, or physically impeding a fielder running for a catch.
Timed Out: Angelo Mathews and the 2023 World Cup
The most discussed timed-out dismissal in cricket history occurred in the 2023 ODI World Cup: Angelo Mathews (Sri Lanka) was dismissed timed out against Bangladesh after he failed to be ready to face the first delivery within three minutes of the fall of the previous wicket. Mathews had arrived at the crease in time but argued that a strap on his helmet broke and needed replacement — he was not ready to face the ball within three minutes. Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan formally appealed, and Mathews was given out by the umpires — the first timed-out dismissal in ICC event history. The dismissal created significant controversy about whether the spirit of cricket required Bangladesh to withdraw the appeal.
Frequently asked questions
Was Bangladesh's appeal for a timed-out dismissal against Angelo Mathews within the spirit of cricket, and what does the controversy reveal about the gap between the Laws and the 'spirit of cricket'?
The Angelo Mathews timed-out controversy in the 2023 World Cup is an excellent case study for the tension between cricket's Laws (which are explicit and enforceable) and the 'spirit of cricket' (which is described in the MCC preamble but not legally binding). The legal position: Bangladesh's appeal was entirely within the Laws. The Law states a new batter must be ready to face within three minutes — no exception for equipment malfunction is written into the Law. Mathews was not ready within three minutes. The umpires correctly gave him out. Bangladesh did nothing illegal. The spirit of cricket argument: Mathews argued (and many commentators agreed) that he was at the crease within time and only failed to be ready due to equipment failure — a helmet strap breaking is not within a batter's control. The spirit of cricket, as the MCC preamble describes it, includes 'allowing a batter a fair opportunity to play.' Refusing a short delay for genuine equipment failure seems contrary to this spirit. The counter-argument: Bangladesh were in a tight World Cup group stage where every competitive advantage mattered. Mathews' non-readiness under the Law was a dismissal available to them. Other teams in the tournament ensured their batters had functioning equipment before they needed it. Accepting Mathews' argument would create an incentive for slow battery arrivals with equipment excuses to gain time at the crease. What the controversy reveals: the 'spirit of cricket' is a real concept that genuine cricket players and fans believe in, but it is not defined precisely enough to be consistently applied. Different people draw the spirit line differently. Shakib Al Hasan's decision to appeal was legally correct and competitively rational but socially controversial — a legal action that many felt violated cricket's unwritten code. The Laws could be amended to include an equipment exception for timed-out; the MCC will presumably consider this.