Obstructing the Field and Crease Laws: What Batters Must Know
The laws covering obstruction at the crease and batters' legal space are among cricket's most nuanced, occasionally producing dramatic dismissals in international cricket.
The Obstructing the Field Law
Law 37 — Obstructing the Field — covers any deliberate act by a batsman that prevents a fielder from fielding the ball. The dismissal can occur when a batsman: uses their bat or body to deliberately deflect a throw aimed at the wicket; moves into the path of a fielder attempting to take a catch; blocks a fielder from reaching the ball; or handles the ball without the fielder's consent (though 'Handled the Ball' was a separate law until 2017, when it was merged into Obstruction). The key legal distinction is 'wilful obstruction' — accidental contact or an unavoidable collision is not out, but a deliberate act to prevent the fielder is out. This is a judgment call by the umpires, and DRS cannot be used to review an obstruction dismissal.
Running Between Wickets and the Crease Laws
The crease laws govern which part of the pitch a batsman may occupy. The popping crease (batting crease) runs parallel to the bowling crease 1.22m in front of the stumps. A batsman is 'in ground' when any part of their body or bat is behind the popping crease. The return crease extends backward from each end of the bowling crease and defines the bowling corridor — bowlers must land with their front foot behind the popping crease and within the return crease to bowl a legal delivery. When running between wickets, batsmen must ground their bat or body behind the popping crease to be 'in' at their end — if the bail is dislodged with neither part behind the crease, the batsman is run out. The crease also determines whether a bowler has overstepped for a no-ball.
Famous Obstruction Dismissals in International Cricket
Ben Stokes's obstruction dismissal in the 2016 ICC World T20 against South Africa was one of cricket's most controversial. While batting, Stokes hit the ball to a fielder and then deliberately deflected the thrown ball with his hand to prevent it hitting the stumps — a clear violation of Law 37. The umpires gave him out; he accepted the decision but it caused significant debate about whether the law's application was too harsh in an instinctive situation. Michael Slater in ODI cricket was given out obstructing the field in a 2006 incident where he physically blocked a fielder from taking a catch. These rare but high-profile cases illustrate that obstruction laws are infrequently applied but clearly defined.
Frequently asked questions
Can a batsman be out 'obstructing the field' off a no-ball?
No — a batsman cannot be dismissed obstructing the field off a no-ball delivery. Law 37 specifically states that a batsman can only be dismissed by obstruction off a fair delivery or off a wide. If the delivery is a no-ball (overstepped front foot, above waist height on the full, etc.), the batsman is protected from obstruction dismissal even if they deliberately block a fielder. They would still be penalised for the obstruction action itself in the form of five penalty runs to the fielding side, but the batsman would not be dismissed. This is one of the few dismissal modes that is restricted to fair deliveries.
What happens when two batsmen collide during a run?
Two batsmen colliding during a run does not in itself constitute obstruction. If both batsmen are legally trying to make their respective creases and they collide, it's treated as an accident with no penalty. However, if one batsman deliberately runs into or holds back a fielder while the other batsman runs, that batsman is out obstructing the field. The umpires must judge intent — in practice, umpires very rarely give a batsman out for a running collision because the intent to obstruct is difficult to establish. Batsmen are expected to run a straight course down the pitch and yield the path to a fielder rather than contact them while the ball is live.
Can the fielding team claim obstruction through DRS?
DRS cannot be used to review an obstruction dismissal. Law 37 involves a judgment by the umpires about whether the obstruction was wilful, and wilfulness is not a fact that ball-tracking technology or ball-tracking can establish. A fielding team can appeal for obstruction through the normal umpire appeal process, and if the on-field umpires disagree they can confer. But the referral process to the third umpire is only available for specific dismissal types — caught, run out, stumped, and now certain LBW reviews — not obstruction. This makes obstruction one of the few modes of dismissal that remains purely in the on-field umpires' jurisdiction.