Raghuvanshi's mode of dismissal in KKR v LSG IPL 2026 caused a huge controversy.
The match went into the super over after LSG had bowled first and KKR made 155/7, with Rinku Singh making 83*. In response, Rishabh Pant’s 42 and other contributions took LSG level with the KKR score, thanks to Mohammad Shami’s last-ball six.
In the super over, Sunil Narine dismissed both Nicholas Pooran and Aiden Markram, and LSG only scored one run. In response, Rinku Singh struck Prince Yadav's opening delivery for a four, giving KKR the victory and crucial two points.
During the KKR innings, Angkrish Raghuvanshi was removed for 9 runs in 8 balls due to disturbing the field. The event occurred in the fifth over, when Raghuvanshi chose to take a single after gently driving a Prince Yadav delivery into mid-on.
Raghuvanshi was forced to twirl around in the middle and race back to his crease when his batting partner Cameron Green abruptly called him back.
An LSG fielder attempted to run the young player out by throwing the ball at wicketkeeper Rishabh Pant, who dove to save himself, but the ball struck Raghuvanshi in the legs. Mohammed Shami and captain Pant filed an appeal as a consequence, claiming that the KKR batter intentionally blocked the throw.
After watching the video replays, the third umpire declared Raghuvanshi out for deliberately changing his running route and blocking the ball, which is known as "obstructing the field."
Now the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has issued clarification on Raghuvanshi’s dismissal. Clarifying the rule, the MCC reiterated that a batter can only be given out if there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side.
Law 37.1.1 states that "either batter is out obstructing the field if they willfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action." This means that the obstacle must be deliberate, which can be difficult to identify.
The governing body also cited a long-standing view of the law, as detailed in its official guidelines, that addresses scenarios in which a batter reverses course while sprinting between the wickets.
According to the MCC, it states, "A batter who changes direction while running, particularly one who changes direction to run on the pitch or takes any other route that would not be the quickest way to the other end, is making a willful act."
Applying this interpretation to the Raghuvanshi incident, the MCC explained that the batter's movement across the pitch played a decisive role in the decision.
"Raghuvanshi clearly meets these criteria. When he sets off for his run, he is on the off side of the wicket. As the ball reaches the fielder, he crosses to the middle of the pitch—which is not somewhere he should be running in any event—and then turns and runs back on the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket. This is, by definition, a willful act.
Had he stayed off the pitch, remaining on the offside, the ball would not have hit him, and even there would have been no question of an obstruction. If he had started running down the leg side, then turned and returned to his ground on that same side before being hit by the ball, that would also see him being not out—he would have been in the way, but not willfully. It is the willful crossing of the pitch that caused his downfall," the MCC said in a statement.
The MCC also addressed allegations that the hitter might have safely completed the run even if the throw had not hit him, stating that such circumstances are not considered under the law.
"There has been some suggestion that Raghuvanshi should not have been given out because he would have made his ground even if the throw had not hit him. However, this is not a consideration. Provided the obstruction is not to prevent a catch being taken, whether a dismissal was likely is not a criterion in obstructing the field," it added.
(IANS inputs)