Handled Ball and Obstruction: Cricket's Rarest Dismissals
Handled ball (now merged into obstruction) and obstructing the field are among cricket's rarest dismissals, but their application reveals important principles about fair play and the spirit of the game.
The History of the Handled Ball Law
Until 2017, 'Handled the Ball' was a separate mode of dismissal in cricket — a batsman who deliberately touched the ball with their hand while it was in play (without the fielder's permission) could be dismissed. This was distinct from 'Hit the Ball Twice' (deliberately striking the ball again after playing a shot) and 'Obstructing the Field.' The 2017 Law revision merged 'Handled the Ball' and 'Hit the Ball Twice' into 'Obstructing the Field' under Law 37 — recognising that all three were fundamentally about a batsman deliberately interfering with the fielding side's ability to field the ball. Historically, handled ball dismissals were extremely rare: approximately 8-10 times in all Test cricket history, with Michael Vaughan (vs. India, 2002) and Mohinder Amarnath among the batsmen dismissed under the old law.
Obstructing the Field: The Current Law
Under the current Law 37, a batsman is out 'Obstructing the Field' for any deliberate act that prevents a fielder from fielding the ball, taking a catch, or completing a run out. The key word is deliberate: accidental obstruction (a batsman running and accidentally colliding with a fielder) is not a dismissal under Law 37. What counts as deliberate includes: physically blocking a fielder from reaching the ball; deliberately using the bat to deflect a thrown ball away from the stumps; intentionally shouting or making noise to distract a fielder from taking a catch; and handling the ball without a fielder's permission. The umpire must judge intent — a very difficult judgment that makes Law 37 among the most rarely applied dismissal modes in cricket.
The Spirit of Cricket Dimension
Obstructing the field dismissals are relatively rare partly because the spirit of cricket discourages them. Many instances of what could technically be obstruction are handled informally — the fielding side may choose not to appeal even when a clear obstruction has occurred, particularly in Test cricket where the spirit of the game is emphasised. Conversely, in limited-overs cricket where a few runs matter enormously, fielding sides are more likely to appeal for obstruction. The ICC Code of Conduct has provisions that address deliberately obstructive behaviour as misconduct even when it doesn't result in a formal dismissal — a batsman who repeatedly obstructs fielders without being given out can be charged under the conduct code.
Frequently asked questions
Has any batsman been given out 'obstructing the field' in a World Cup?
Inzamam-ul-Haq was given out obstructing the field in the 2007 Cricket World Cup final between Pakistan and Australia. While a fielder was attempting to run him out, Inzamam moved into the path of the throw, preventing a run-out, and the umpires gave him out under the obstructing the field law. This was a high-profile case that brought the dismissal mode into wider awareness — many cricket fans at the time were unfamiliar with the law's application. Before this, handled ball dismissals at World Cups were even rarer. The Inzamam case highlighted that in high-stakes limited-overs cricket, obstruction appeals are taken more seriously by both umpires and fielding teams.
Can a batsman be out obstructing the field in all formats?
Yes — Law 37 applies in all formats of cricket: Test matches, ODIs, T20Is, and domestic games. The law does not distinguish between formats. However, the practical application differs: in T20 cricket, the speed of play and the close positioning of fielders makes accidental obstruction more common, while deliberate obstruction is also more likely to be appealed because every run matters. In Test cricket, the longer time scale and the spirit-of-cricket emphasis mean many borderline obstruction situations are handled informally. The law is universal; its application in practice is influenced by the culture and context of each format.
Who records a dismissal 'obstructing the field' in the scorebook?
In the scorebook, an 'Obstructing the Field' dismissal is recorded as 'Obstructing the Field' with no bowler credited (unlike caught, bowled, or LBW where the bowler receives a wicket). The wicket is credited to the fielder or the team but not to any individual bowler — it doesn't count toward any bowler's tally of wickets taken. This recording convention is consistent with the other 'unusual' dismissals — run out, timed out, handled ball (historically) — where the umpire's decision rather than a bowler's action produces the dismissal. In career statistics, obstructing the field dismissals appear in the batsman's record but not in any individual bowler's bowling analysis.