Obstructing the Field: Cricket's Rarest Dismissal Explained
How the obstructing the field dismissal works under cricket Law 37, notable instances including Ben Stokes at the 2015 World Cup, and how the separate 'handling the ball' law was merged into it in 2017.
Obstructing the field is among the rarest dismissals in professional cricket — occurring perhaps once every few years in international competition — yet it carries significant tactical and legal interest. Law 37 of the Laws of Cricket governs the dismissal: a batter is out if they deliberately obstruct a fielder attempting to field the ball or complete a catch. In 2017, the MCC merged the previously separate 'handled the ball' dismissal (Law 33) into Law 37, creating a single, broader obstruction law.
What Constitutes Obstruction Under Law 37
The key word in Law 37 is 'wilfully'. A batter is not out for accidentally getting in a fielder's way during the normal chaos of a run or a collision — the act must be deliberate. The Law covers: a batter using a hand, bat or body to deflect a ball in flight that would otherwise be caught or fielded; a batter deliberately running between a fielder and the ball to prevent a throw reaching the stumps; or a batter using their hand to knock away a ball that would otherwise hit the stumps (the former 'handled the ball' scenario). The fielding side must appeal; the umpire does not give a batter out without an appeal. Obstruction can be given out against either the striker or the non-striker, though it most commonly involves the striker.
Ben Stokes at the 2015 Cricket World Cup
The most prominent modern obstructing the field dismissal came at the 2015 Cricket World Cup in Hamilton, New Zealand, when England's Ben Stokes was given out for obstructing the field against South Africa. Stokes, batting at 26, played a shot toward AB de Villiers and ran, but the ball deflected back toward the stumps. As South African wicketkeeper AB de Villiers attempted to gather the ball for a run-out chance, Stokes deliberately raised his arm and deflected the ball away with his right forearm. The third umpire reviewed the incident and confirmed it as a deliberate act of obstruction. Stokes himself appeared to accept the decision; England lost the match and the dismissal was cited as a key turning point.
How Obstruction Differs from Legitimate Evasion
The line between legitimate self-protection and obstruction can be fine. A batter is entitled to avoid being hit by a thrown ball — ducking, swerving or moving aside is not obstruction. However, if in avoiding a throw the batter intentionally moves into the line of the throw to prevent it reaching the wicketkeeper or the stumps, that crosses into obstruction territory. The umpire must judge intention: was the batter's movement primarily self-protective, or was it designed to disrupt the fielding team's line of play? This judgment is rarely clear-cut, which is one reason the dismissal is appealed more often than it is given.
The 2017 Merger with Handled the Ball
Before 2017, 'handled the ball' was a separate Law (33) covering any instance where a batter deliberately touched the ball with a hand that was not holding the bat, without the fielding side's consent. Post-2017, this scenario is now simply a subset of obstructing the field — using a hand to deflect, stop or redirect the ball wilfully is an obstruction. The practical effect is modest (both resulted in dismissal), but the consolidation simplified the Laws and removed an awkward distinction between 'hand used on ball' and 'body used on ball'. The fielding side's consent provision remains: if a fielder asks a batter to handle the ball for a legitimate reason (for example, to replace a ball near the stumps) and the batter does so, it is not obstruction.
Frequently asked questions
Can a batter ever legitimately handle the ball or get in a fielder's way without being given out?
Yes, and this matters more than the rarity of the dismissal suggests, because batters routinely interact with the ball in ways that could superficially look like obstruction but are lawfully permitted. The fielding side's consent exception: if a fielder gives a batter permission to touch the ball — for instance, tossing the ball back — no dismissal is possible. This often happens when the ball rolls near the crease and a fielder casually asks the batter to hand it back rather than bending down themselves. Consent, explicitly given or clearly implied by the fielder's actions, removes the obstruction. Self-protection from injury: a batter is entitled to use a hand to protect themselves from a ball bowled or thrown at pace. If a fielder's throw hits a batter's hand instinctively raised in self-defence, the umpire must judge whether the deflection was reflexive or deliberate. A purely instinctive reaction — hand raised to protect the face from a rising ball, for instance — should not be obstruction. The difficulty is that 'instinctive' and 'deliberate' exist on a continuum, and the batter's subsequent behaviour (looking to see where the ball went, or immediately continuing running) can inform the umpire's judgment. Avoiding a fielder: a batter legally runs between fielders all the time, and accidentally impeding a fielder's movement or momentarily blocking their line is part of normal cricket. Only deliberate acts — intentionally running into a fielder, deliberately changing direction to block a throw — constitute obstruction. Accidental collisions are not dismissals, though they may stop play if the umpire judges the incident serious enough to call dead ball. The practical lesson for batters: the moment you find yourself thinking about where the ball is after you've played a shot — and whether to use your hand or body to redirect it — stop. Any deliberate physical act to change the ball's trajectory that disadvantages the fielding team is obstruction under post-2017 Law 37.