SCCG®: Play Green, Play for our Future

In the ACA T20 2023 game between SCCG and FCCC at the beautiful CCV91 ground in Latshach, Austria, a SCCG batter fell victim to the unusual dismissal by ‘Field Obstruction’. The batter had dragged a ball to his stumps and stopped it using his arm from going on to the wicket. See the bizzaire dismissal in the video at the end of the post! This game was streamed live on our youtube channel @SCCGCricket, you can find a recording of the streamed video in the ‘Library’ section of our youtube channel. Like and subscribe us on youtube and wordpress for supporting us to create more content and live streams.

The umpires had a really tough job of making a fair call, conferring with competition officials far away in Vienna. The SCCG batter was finally ruled ‘OUT’ after 15 minutes of intensive discussion between the umpires and the officials. This is the very first time a SCCG player fell prey to Field Obstruction dismissal. The whole situation sparked a debate among team mates and opponents alike, and my curiosity got the best of me to have a deeper look into the specific law. Please note that this is just a Blog post that i wrote to satisfy my curiosity and my love for the elegant but complex game of cricket, and not meant in any way relating to any real people in any roles!

Dismissal by field obstruction also happens in international cricket. Here’s a video compilation of some famous dismissals in international cricket for obstructing the field. Have a look and comment on how each of the dismissals were justified!

Here’s an interesting analysis of the very rare dismissal by ‘Field Obstruction’ along with the compilation of videos of such dismissals in international cricket.

**Game of Laws: Cricket?**

A game is always defined with a set of laws, and these very laws point a player towards the end objective – victory. What makes cricket highly interesting both to play and watch, are the complex laws governing the game – increasing the number of limitations to the players of what they can and cannot do, thus increasing the creativity both how players play the game and how they strategize their game. The MCC are the custodians of the Laws of Cricket and are responsible for the debating, decision making and drafting of the Laws to be followed in village level to international cricket (1). Though the ICC is the official governing body for international cricket, the MCC actually is given the responsibility and recognized by the ICC to draft, debate, introduce changes to, and making decisions on the Laws of the game.

**The Law of Field Obstruction**

Lets get right to the point. What exactly is this ‘Field Obstruction’? Lets have a close look at the details surrounding the conditions of this unique way of dismissal.

The MCC Law 37, defines the rules and conditions surrounding this way of dismissal (2). There are a whopping SIX very complicated parts to the definition of this law, each detailing the unique possibilities of obstructing the field. Additionally, there is another Law which is also associated to this particular law. They are as follows:

37.1 Out Obstructing the field
37.2 Not out Obstructing the field
37.3 Obstructing a ball from being caught
37.4 Returning the ball to a fielder
37.5 Runs scored
37.6 Bowler does not get credit

Law 34: Hit the Ball twice

The 37.1 outlines the first actions of the batter to be ruled out in such instances with its first part 37.1.1. – the batter, except in the circumstances of 37.2, wilfully attempts to obstruct the ball while in play, through actions (obstruct) or words (distract the fielders), is declared out. This means that if either of the batters- on strike or at the bowling end, can be declared out for obstructing an in- play ball, or distracting the fielders with words. The 37.1.2 further filters the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, stating that the batter is to be declared out, if they wilfully strike the ball with a hand not holding the bat, and this rule will apply whether it is the first strike, or a second or subsequent strike. This act of receiving the ball (a ball after the bowler has delivered it) shall extend both to the on-strike and off-strike batter, and to striking the ball more than once in defence of their wicket. The 37.1.3. makes clear that the dismissal is legal even if the ball delivered is declared a no-ball by the umpires.

A much closer look on the parts 37.2, 37.3 and also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice) is needed to understand the boundaries of the Law 37, as even with the instances of 37.1, it is not completely clear how the batter can save his wicket after the recieving of a delivery.

The 37.2 lists the instances of field obstruction by batter, where the batter is not given out – if the obstruction or distraction is either accidental, or is to present imminent injury, or they make a second strike lawfully according to Law 34. The part 37.3 however, brings in a more complex rule to both batters at the pitch, when they wilfully obstruct or distract once the ball is in play, which could result in a catch, even if the striker lawfully strikes the ball twice with regard to Law 34 – but only if the ball is NOT a no-ball. The striker is only given not out when they lawfully strike the ball twice, and the delivery is declared a no-ball by the umpires.

So many mentions to Law 34, got us looking at the law (3) for the finer details. But, we will get to that part after summarizing Law 37 first.

37.4 covers the instance of the legal dismissal way, when a batter returns the ball, without the consent of a fielder, using the bat or any part of their person to return the ball to any fielder, while in play. This is pretty much straight forward, and eas-ier to understand than the other parts.

Parts 37.5 and 37.6 describe the awarding of runs to the batter in such instances, either when the batter is declared out or not, and the non awarding of the dismissal credit to the bowler respectively.

So, summarizing Law 37, a batter (either) is declared out for wilfully either obstructing an in-play ball before being touched by a fielder, or distracting the fielding side with words, preventing his possible resulting dismissal, or even when they return the ball to a fielder without his consent with any part of body or bat, excluding accidental and injury- preventing obstruction, or lawfully striking the ball twice or more according to rule 34. The batter is declared out also on occasion of a no-ball if the obstruction is not according to Law 34 and will result in a catch, or the batter uses the hand NOT holding the bat.

*Phew* 🙂

**Law 34**

Now, on to the illustrious Law 34 (3) defining the lawful ways to strike an in- play ball twice or more – which may or may not lead to a dismissal. This Law brings into consideration the lawful ways a batter can actually strike the ball twice or subsequently more, which would not lead to a dismissal. Meaning that if the player lawfully ‘strikes’ the ball according to the Law 34, he might not be obstructing the Field and will not be judged OUT by the umpires.

Law 34, comprising of further three parts, states that the striker may, solely in order to guard their wicket and before the ball has been touched by a fielder, lawfully strike the ball a second or subsequent time with the bat, or with any part of his/her person other than a hand not holding the bat. However, if the batter strikes the ball more than once to prevent a resulting catch, they will be declared out, irrespective of whether it is a no ball or not (37.3).

**The Verdict?**

So this means that it is lawful under Law 34, and hence under Law 37, to willfully strike the ball with any part of the body except the hand not holding the bat to prevent the ball dragging on to the wickets. The batter may, for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket stop the in-play ball anyhow other than use the hand not holding the bat. The batter should also not willingly block a throw from a fielder well out of crease or even return the ball to a fielder without his consent.

Almost all batters use their preferred hand to hold the bat at bottom – right handers have their right hand at the bottom while left handers have the other way around (I have come across people using the wrong hand in the bottom, so I say ‘Almost all’), making it more convenient and instinctively faster to push/tap/scoop/strike the ball they dragged on to the stumps with their easily available preferred bottom hand – would ultimately lead to the batter’s dismissal. But only those lucky enough at that particular instant would instinctively use their bat, or the arm holding their bat to push, or kick the dragged ball away from the stumps with their leg and be awarded the NOT OUT decision by the umpires.

Coming back to the SCCG vs FCC game, where the SCCG batter is seen to swat the ball instinctively with the hand NOT holding their bat (unlucky) away from the stumps, and in accordance to MCC Laws 34 and 37, was declared rightfully ‘OUT’ (See video below) by the umpires.

P.S. I am mentioning it again that this content is just a result of my curiosity, rather than in relation to any people in any roles. Please take this blog post as just an interesting read!

Sources:

1. https://www.lords.org/mcc/about-the-laws-of-cricket

2. https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/obstructing-the-field

3. https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/hit-the-ball-twice

4. Youtube channels : @sccgcricket, @ICC, @Talk Media, @lordscricketground, @feedomatic, @officialenglandcricket, @SIRFSPORTS,