Obstructing the Field: Cricket's Rarest Dismissal
Law 37 — the obstructing the field dismissal, when a batsman can be given out for deliberate physical interference with a fielder's attempt to field the ball or complete a catch, the handful of Test cases in history, the difference between obstructing and running on the pitch, and the retired-hurt distinction.
What Constitutes Obstruction
Law 37 of the Laws of Cricket covers 'obstructing the field' — a dismissal that occurs when a batsman deliberately obstructs, hinders, or distracts a fielder who is attempting to field the ball, take a catch, or complete a run-out. The key qualifier is 'deliberately': accidental obstruction (a fielder running into a batsman who is running between wickets legitimately, or the ball hitting the batsman's body while they are in their running line) does not constitute obstruction. The batsman must have actively attempted to interfere with the fielding action.
Obstruction can take several forms: physically blocking a fielder's path to a ball; deflecting a ball with the hand or body while specifically attempting to prevent a run-out; verbally distracting a fielder at the moment of a catch attempt (though this is extremely rare and very difficult to establish); or deliberately running into a fielder who is waiting to complete a catch. The dismissal is given by the umpire on appeal — it cannot be given without a fielding-side appeal.
Historical Cases
Obstructing the field is one of the rarest dismissals in all of cricket — fewer than 10 instances have been recorded in Test cricket history. The most notable recent case was Len Hutton (England) in 1951, given out obstructing the field against South Africa — one of the most celebrated Test batsmen of his era dismissed by this unusual method. In more recent first-class cricket, Inzamam-ul-Haq was given out obstructing the field in an ODI against India in 1997, after he deliberately kicked the ball away from a fielder attempting a run-out.
The low frequency of obstructing-the-field dismissals reflects both the intentionality requirement (most fielding interference is accidental) and the reluctance of umpires to give this dismissal without compelling evidence. In practice, fielders are inclined to accept accidental contact during a run as part of the game; only clearly deliberate interference — particularly when it demonstrably affects a run-out or catch — results in appeals that umpires uphold.
Handled the Ball (Now Part of Law 37)
The 2017 revision of the Laws of Cricket merged the previously separate 'handled the ball' dismissal (Law 33) into 'obstructing the field' (Law 37). Under the revised law, a batsman who wilfully touches the ball with a hand that is not holding the bat, while the ball is in play, can be given out obstructing the field. The most common scenario: a batsman reaches out and deflects a ball that is rolling toward the stumps, preventing a bowled dismissal. This is deliberate interference with the fielding side's opportunity to take a wicket.
Frequently asked questions
Can a batsman be given out obstructing the field for running in the pitch?
No — running in the pitch (batsmen damaging the pitch surface by running repeatedly over the bowler's follow-through area rather than around it) is covered by Law 41.14, not Law 37. Running on the pitch is handled by the umpire giving a warning and potentially penalising 5 runs, not by a dismissal. It is separate from obstructing the field and does not result in a batsman being given out.
Who makes the appeal for obstructing the field?
The fielding team makes the appeal in the normal way (raising the finger and calling 'how's that' or equivalent). The umpire then decides whether the obstruction was deliberate and whether the ball was in play at the moment of obstruction. If the ball was already dead (e.g., the wicketkeeper had caught it and the fielding team considered it finished), an obstruction claim cannot be made. The timing — ball in play, deliberate action — must both be established.
Can the batsman who did not obstruct also be dismissed?
No — only the batsman who commits the obstruction can be given out. The non-striking batsman, even if they were involved in the running, is not dismissed unless they are separately the subject of a run-out attempt that is upheld alongside the obstruction incident. The obstructing dismissal is personal to the batsman who took the obstructing action.