The IPL has been thrown into debate after Kolkata Knight Riders batter Angkrish Raghuvanshi was ruled out for obstructing the field during their contest against Lucknow Super Giants. In the IPL 2026 game on Sunday, Angkrish became only the fourth batter in the tournament\u2019s history to be dismissed for that specific offence, with third umpire Rohan Pandit delivering the signal that sparked instant disagreement. While many believe the decision followed the laws as they stand, former India players Virender Sehwag and Rohan Gavaskar expressed clear reservations about whether Angkrish\u2019s actions met the threshold for an out.<\/p>\n
Match officials generally apply a straightforward test when \u201cobstructing the field\u201d is in question. The first part is whether the batter significantly altered the course of their running, and the second is whether that change happened without probable cause. In Angkrish\u2019s case, the on-field and decision-making group concluded that both requirements were satisfied, leading to his dismissal.<\/p>\n
On Cricbuzz, though, Rohan Gavaskar argued that the picture from the umpire\u2019s perspective may not have justified a wicket. He pointed out that Angkrish\u2019s eyes were not fixed on stopping the ball, suggesting the movement was driven by the natural flow of his run rather than an attempt to interfere. \u201cI think it\u2019s not out because of the way he turned, dived, and jumped. His eyes were not on the ball,\u201d Rohan said, explaining how the batter appeared to be making an instinctive adjustment to the throw. He added that Angkrish did not look like he was trying to block contact; if that had been the intention, he would have stayed still\u2014since he was already positioned in the path of the throw\u2014so the ball would have struck him. Instead, the dive and jump, in Rohan\u2019s view, indicated the action was unplanned. \u201cSo, I believe it\u2019s not out,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n
Sehwag backed a similar line of thinking, stressing that brief glances at the fielder are routine for batters who are trying to assess the safest running direction and the incoming throw. For the former opener, even the dive itself could be explained as part of normal decision-making on the move. \u201cEvery batsman looks at the fielder when the ball goes to them. You take one run, you take two runs, and you see which end is safer,\u201d Sehwag said. He argued that if the throw were coming to the bowling end, there would be little reason for the batter to dive. However, once the batter senses the throw is heading to the wicket-end, a dive becomes a logical response. \u201cYour eyes will naturally go towards the fielder. It\u2019s not that his eyes were on the fielder because he thought, \u2018I am stopping something.\u2019 He dived after that. So, I believe it\u2019s not out,\u201d Sehwag said.<\/p>\n
Sehwag also offered a more detailed interpretation of the sequence. \u201cWhen he turned, he was looking at the fielder to see where the ball was coming from. But after turning, he ran and jumped. He wasn\u2019t looking at the fielder anymore, nor was his attention in front. In my opinion, a slightly harsh decision has been made here,\u201d he added, underlining his belief that the action did not resemble purposeful obstruction.<\/p>\n
The discussion then shifted to what the rule actually requires. The relevant wording from the MCC rulebook is referenced in the IPL 2026 playing conditions, specifically Clause 37.1.4. It states that if an umpire believes a batter, while running between the wickets, has significantly changed direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder\u2019s attempt to effect a run out, the batter should be given out upon appeal for obstructing the field. Importantly, the clause adds that it does not matter whether a run out would have happened or not.<\/p>\n
Other ex-cricketers also weighed in against the dismissal, suggesting that expecting a batter to make a full 180-degree change in direction is unrealistic, and that some amount of natural turning is inevitable when reacting to a throw. Sanjay Bangar and Carlos Brathwaite were among those who argued that the decision was harsh given the constraints of the batter\u2019s movement, even as the rulebook allows for an out if the umpire judges both \u201csignificant change\u201d and \u201cno probable cause\u201d to be present.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The IPL has been thrown into debate after Kolkata Knight Riders batter Angkrish Raghuvanshi was ruled out for obstructing the field during their contest against…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":5704,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_yoast_wpseo_title":"IPL 2026: Sehwag Reacts to Field Obstruction Call vs LSG","_yoast_wpseo_metadesc":"IPL 2026 controversy: Sehwag weighs in after Angkrish Raghuvanshi\u2019s field obstruction dismissal vs LSG, sparking debate on umpiring and rules.","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ipl"],"yoast_head":"\n