Kolkata Knight Riders’ Angkrish Raghuvanshi was dismissed obstructing the field in controversial circumstances against Lucknow Super Giants on Sunday (April 27). Did the third umpire make the correct decision?
Raghuvanshi became only the fourth batter to be dismissed obstructing the field in the IPL after he got in the way of a Mohammed Shami throw. LSG captain Rishabh Pant and Shami fairly lodged what was a half-hearted appeal, which the on-field official sent to the third umpire Rohan Pandit.
Pandit felt Raghuvanshi was “clearly changing directions” while also “watching the ball” and adjudged him out. The decision did not go down well with the batter, while the KKR bench was infuriated as well, with Abhishek Nayar, Shane Watson and Dwayne Bravo all registering their protests to the decision.
What do the laws say?
Raghuvanshi played the ball to mid-on and ran almost instinctively. Green sent him back, at which point he stopped in the middle of the pitch and turned, ran back in a straight line, and dived to get back into the crease when the throw hit him. There was no malicious intent; the batter clearly didn’t try to get into the throw’s way, so why was he given out? It seemed a clearly wrong decision in real time, but there’s more to it.
Clause 37.1.4 of the IPL Playing Conditions, which deals with obstructing the field dismissal, states that “if an umpire feels that a batter, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed his direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt to effect a run out, the batter should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing the field. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not.”
The law doesn’t consider the batter’s intent as among the conditions to adjudge them out, but the focus is on whether they significantly changed directions without probable cause. The third umpire here likely assumed that Raghuvanshi had taken off through the middle of the pitch before going outside the strip when returning to his crease, thus significantly changing directions without probable cause.
Did Angkrish Raghuvanshi change directions without any probable cause?
“He can’t straightaway turn when he is sprinting down the pitch,” commented Deep Dasgupta on the global feed, echoing the sentiments of many. He may not be entirely wrong on this.
A closer look at the replays suggests Raghuvanshi ran across the pitch at first and was close to the protected area when he was sent back. Instinctively, for a batter not trying to run down the centre of the pitch, he moved outside the strip to get back into his crease.
He would also need some turning radius when stopping midway from a sprint before accelerating again, all while trying to return to the crease in time. This is enough to suggest that there was probable cause for Raghuvanshi to run the course that he did. Ultimately, this decision came down to the umpire's interpretation, and he came down on the side of no probable cause.
