Angkrish Raghuvanshi was given out for obstructing the field during the IPL 2026 match between Kolkata Knight Riders and Lucknow Super Giants on April 26, 2026, marking only the fourth such dismissal in tournament history.
The incident occurred in the super over when Raghuvanshi attempted a second run after playing the ball to mid-off. Cameron Green threw the ball back to the wicketkeeper’s complete, and as Raghuvanshi turned back toward the crease, he appeared to change his path, blocking the throw from hitting the stumps.
On-field umpires referred the decision to the third umpire, who ruled that Raghuvanshi had willfully obstructed the field by altering his running line, resulting in his dismissal under Law 37 of the MCC Laws of Cricket.
Lucknow’s wicketkeeper Rishabh Pant and bowler Mohammed Shami appealed immediately, triggering the review. KKR coach Abhishek Nayar engaged in a heated verbal exchange with the umpires over the call, which stood after third-umpire confirmation.
Replays showed the ball struck Raghuvanshi’s foot after deflecting from Green’s throw, but did not make direct contact with the stumps — a point of contention among analysts who questioned whether the obstruction was material to the outcome.
Despite the debate, the third umpire upheld the original decision, emphasizing that the batter’s change of direction impeded the fielder’s attempt to effect a run-out, satisfying the criteria for obstructing the field.
The dismissal drew sharp reactions from players and commentators, with KKR players seen arguing fiercely on the field, while Lucknow celebrated the rare tactical breakthrough.
This marked only the fourth time in IPL history that a batter has been given out for obstructing the field, joining a list of exceedingly rare dismissals under one of cricket’s most debated laws.
Historical data from IPL archives shows prior instances occurred in 2017, 2020, and 2023, all involving subtle alterations in running path deemed to obstruct a fielder’s throw.
The Law 37 provision allows for a batter to be out if they willfully obstruct a fielder by word or action, and umpires are instructed to judge intent based on movement and timing relative to the throw.
For more on this story, see Ankush Raghuwanshi given out obstructing field in rare IPL dismissal vs LSG.
While the rule exists to prevent unfair advantage, its application remains subjective, often hinging on split-second judgments that can influence match outcomes in high-pressure situations like a super over.
The third umpire confirmed Raghuvanshi changed his running line to block the throw
TV umpire replays showed Raghuvanshi deviating from a straight path after turning for the second run, moving slightly toward the leg side as the ball arrived, which the third umpire interpreted as deliberate obstruction.
KKR’s coach confronted umpires verbally after the decision was upheld
Abhishek Nayar was seen gesturing aggressively and arguing with both on-field and third umpires, requiring intervention from match officials to restore order before play resumed.
Replays did not show the ball hitting the stumps, fueling debate over material impact
Although the ball struck Raghuvanshi’s pad or foot, it did not make contact with the wickets, leading some to argue the obstruction did not affect the run-out chance, though Law 37 does not require the stumps to be hit.
This is only the fourth obstructing the field dismissal in IPL history
Previous occurrences were rare and similarly controversial, underscoring how infrequently umpires invoke Law 37 even in clear-cut seeming cases.
The dismissal occurred in a high-stakes super over that Kolkata ultimately won
Despite losing the wicket, Kolkata Knight Riders held their nerve in the super over to defeat Lucknow Super Giants, advancing in the tournament.
What does Law 37 say about obstructing the field?
Law 37 states a batter is out if they willfully obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action, and it is up to the umpire to judge whether the obstruction was intentional and material to the play.
Has this ever happened before in an IPL super over?
No, this is the first time a batter has been given out for obstructing the field in an IPL super over, making the dismissal particularly notable given the match context.
Can the batter be given not out if they claim it was accidental?
Yes, intent is central to the decision; if the umpire believes the action was involuntary or unavoidable, the batter should be not out, but in this case, the third umpire deemed the path change deliberate.
Why don’t we see more obstructing the field calls in cricket?
Umpires apply a high threshold for calling obstructing the field, requiring clear evidence of willful obstruction, which is often difficult to determine in real time without conclusive TV evidence.