Rare Dismissals in Cricket: Obstructing the Field, Hit the Ball Twice, and Handled the Ball Explained
Cricket has 10 ways to be dismissed. The rarest are: Obstructing the Field (deliberately impeding the fielder — e.g., Len Hutton, 1951, and Inzamam-ul-Haq, 2006), Hit the Ball Twice (deliberately striking the ball a second time, not to protect the wicket), and Handled the Ball (now merged into Obstructing the Field under 2017 Laws). Timed Out (the new batter taking more than 3 minutes to arrive) has been given only once in international cricket — Angelo Mathews vs Bangladesh, 2023 World Cup.
Cricket has 10 methods of dismissal: bowled, caught, leg before wicket (LBW), run out, stumped, hit wicket, and the rarer quartet — obstructing the field, hit the ball twice, timed out, and (formerly) handled the ball. The last four are so rare that most cricket fans never see them in a lifetime of watching. Each has specific rules and conditions that make them interesting cases in the Laws of Cricket.
Obstructing the Field (Law 37)
A batter is out obstructing the field if they deliberately obstruct or distract a fielder by word or action. This includes: (a) deliberately handling the ball (now merged into this law under 2017 Laws), (b) deliberately obstructing a fielder attempting a catch or run-out, (c) deliberately distracting a fielder by word. Famous examples: Len Hutton (England) was the first international player dismissed obstructing the field (vs South Africa, 1951). Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pakistan) was dismissed obstructing the field vs South Africa (2006) when he struck the ball a second time to prevent a run-out but was judged to have deliberately obstructed.
Timed Out — The Only International Example
Timed Out (Law 40): a new batter must be ready to take strike within 3 minutes of the previous wicket falling. In the 2023 World Cup, Angelo Mathews (Sri Lanka) was dismissed Timed Out vs Bangladesh — the first in ODI World Cup history and only the second in international cricket ever. Mathews was hampered by a broken helmet strap; the Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan appealed; the umpires upheld the appeal. The incident was widely controversial — Bangladesh were criticised for not withdrawing the appeal given Mathews's equipment failure, though the appeal was technically legal.
Frequently asked questions
What is the most controversial dismissal in cricket history, and how have the Laws of Cricket evolved to address unusual dismissal situations?
Most controversial dismissals and the evolution of dismissal Laws. Several dismissals have generated major controversy in cricket's history, involving both unusual Law applications and disputes about the spirit of the game. Handled Ball controversies: Graham Gooch (England) was dismissed 'handled the ball' vs Australia in 1993 — he had deflected the ball with his gloved hand after it hit his body, to prevent it from rolling onto his wicket. Australia appealed; the umpire gave it out. The Laws (at the time, Law 33) were clear, but the cricketing community felt it was against the spirit of the game. The batter should protect his wicket by fair means; hitting the ball with a gloved hand is technically 'handled the ball.' The 2017 ICC Law revision removed Handled Ball as a separate dismissal — it is now just one manner of Obstructing the Field, which requires deliberate intent. This addressed the Gooch-type scenario more fairly. Mankad controversy: Run Out at the non-striker's end (informally called 'Mankad' dismissal) occurs when the bowler removes the non-striker's bails before delivering because the non-striker has left their crease early. It is 100% legal (Law 41.16) but is considered poor spirit by many. Vinoo Mankad (India) dismissed Bill Brown (Australia) this way in 1947 — giving it the informal name. The ICC added it to the Laws explicitly as a Run Out in 2022 to remove any sporting controversy. The Spirit of Cricket (Preamble to the Laws): the MCC (which owns the Laws of Cricket) added a Preamble on the Spirit of the Game to the Laws. It is advisory, not enforceable, and notes that captains are responsible for maintaining the spirit of cricket — which includes not appealing for something they know was not a genuine dismissal. The Mathews 2023 Timed Out case: Bangladesh's appeal was legally correct but violated the spirit of the Preamble — Mathews had a genuine equipment failure. The ICC's post-match statements acknowledged the legal correctness but criticized the spirit. Whether the Laws should change to allow 'equipment failure' exceptions to the Timed Out law is now under review.