The incident sparked widespread debate after Raghuvanshi was adjudged out by the third umpire while attempting to take a U-turn and return to the striker\u2019s end. The batter had initially set off for a quick single before being sent back by his partner. As he turned and dived to make his ground, the throw from the field struck him, prompting an appeal that resulted in his dismissal under Law 37.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
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.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Law 37.1.1 says that \"either batter is out Obstructing the Field if they \u2018wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.\u2019 That means that the obstruction must be deliberate, which can be hard to determine.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n
The governing body further referred to a long-standing interpretation of the law, as outlined in its official guidelines, that addresses situations in which a batter changes direction while running between the wickets.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
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 wilful act.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Applying this interpretation to the Raghuvanshi incident, the MCC explained that the batter\u2019s movement across the pitch played a decisive role in the decision.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cRaghuvanshi 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 \u2013 which is not somewhere he should be running in any event \u2013 and then turns and runs back on the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket. This is, by definition, a wilful act.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\"Had he stayed off the pitch, remaining on the off side, 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 wilfully. It is the wilful crossing of the pitch that caused his downfall,\u201d the MCC said in a statement<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cRaghuvanshi 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 \u2013 which is not somewhere he should be running in any event \u2013 and then turns and runs back on the leg side, putting himself between the ball and the wicket. This is, by definition, a wilful act.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\u201cThere 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,\u201d it added.<\/p>\r\n\r\n