Angkush Raghuwanshi walked off the field not because he was bowled, caught, or run out, but because he was deemed to have obstructed the field — a dismissal so rare in IPL history that it has occurred only three times before him.
The incident unfolded during the final ball of the fifth over in the KKR versus Lucknow Super Giants match at Ekana Stadium on April 26, 2026. Raghuwanshi played a shot toward mid-off and set off for a single, only to be sent back by non-striker Cameron Green. As he turned to return to the crease, a throw from the fielder struck him on the body. Lucknow appealed and the on-field umpire referred the decision to the third umpire.
After reviewing the replay, the third umpire ruled that Raghuwanshi had changed his direction while returning, thereby blocking the throw’s path to the stumps. Under Law 37 of the MCC Laws of Cricket, a batter is out obstructing the field if they wilfully impede a fielder attempting a run-out. The third umpire concluded that Raghuwanshi had seen the incoming throw and adjusted his trajectory to avoid being hit, which constituted intentional obstruction.
KKR’s reaction was immediate and visceral. Head coach Abhishek Nair confronted the umpire at the boundary, while Raghuwanshi stood in the middle of the pitch, arguing the decision. Replays showed the ball never touched the stumps, intensifying the disbelief in the KKR camp. The dismissal sparked widespread debate over the interpretation of “wilful” obstruction, particularly when a batter is merely trying to avoid injury.
Raghuwanshi became the fourth batter in IPL history to be given out obstructing the field. The previous instances occurred in 2017 (Kieron Pollard), 2019 (Ravindra Jadeja), and 2021 (Marcus Stoinis). Each case involved a batter altering their path during a run-out attempt, though none had drawn quite as much scrutiny as this one, given the lack of contact with the wickets.
The incident raises questions about the consistency of obstructing-the-field calls in high-pressure T20 environments. While the law aims to prevent dangerous or deceptive actions, critics argue that batters instinctively adjusting their path to avoid being hit by a throw should not be penalised — especially when no attempt is made to deceive or distract the fielder.
Why was the third umpire’s decision controversial?
The decision hinged on the interpretation of “wilful” obstruction. Raghuwanshi was not attempting to deceive the fielder but was avoiding being hit by the throw. Many observers, including KKR’s coaching staff, argued that self-preservation should not equate to intentional obstruction under the spirit of the law.
How does this dismissal compare to previous obstructing-the-field outs in IPL?
Unlike earlier cases — such as Pollard’s blatant bat swipe or Jadeja’s late block — Raghuwanshi’s involvement was more passive: he changed direction to avoid contact, not to impede the throw. This nuance has made his dismissal the most debated of the four instances in IPL history.