By word or action

Law 37 opens wide. Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, while the ball is in play, "he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action". Not obstructs. Attempts to obstruct. And not only by action.

Word or action

"By word or action" is the phrase. A batter who calls out to put a fielder off is within it. So is one who steps into a fielder's path, or waves a hand, or does anything else the umpire reads as a wilful attempt to obstruct or distract. The Law does not list what counts. It states the intent, wilful, and the target, the fielding side, and leaves the act open.

"Attempts" widens it further. The obstruction does not have to succeed. A batter who tries to get in the way and fails has still tried, and the clause is about the trying.

The hand not holding the bat

Clause 37.1.2 is narrower. "The striker is out Obstructing the field if, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat." A specific act, a specific moment, a specific hand.

It sits inside a Law about obstruction because that is what it is treated as: the striker stopping the ball with something other than the bat, on purpose, is obstructing the fielding side's chance at it. The Law gives it no separate name. It is one clause among six in Law 37, and the scorecard records it the same way as the rest.

What is not out

Clause 37.2 lists three escapes. The obstruction or distraction was accidental. The obstruction was in order to avoid injury. Or, for the striker only, it was a second or subsequent strike to guard the wicket, which Law 34.3 permits.

The first of the three carries the weight. The whole of 37.1 turns on "wilfully", and 37.2 says the same thing from the other side: accidental is not out. Between them they make intent the question, and intent is the umpire's to judge. There is no gauge for it.

Returning the ball

Clause 37.4 is the one most likely to catch a batter who meant no harm. "Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder."

Helping is obstructing. A batter who picks up a ball and tosses it to the bowler, ball still in play, no fielder having asked, is out under this clause. The consent of a fielder is the whole of the defence, and the Law puts the burden of getting it on the batter, not on the fielder to refuse.

Three clauses about catches

Clauses 37.3.1 to 37.3.3 deal with a batter obstructing a ball from being caught, including the cases where No ball has been called. The detail is technical and this piece does not reproduce it. What the three clauses establish is that a catch obstructed is a dismissal in its own right, filed here rather than under Caught.

Whether No ball is called

Clause 37.1.3: "This Law will apply whether or not No ball is called." An obstruction on a no ball is still an obstruction. Leg before requires, in the first condition of Law 36, that the delivery is "not being a No ball". Obstructing the field requires no such thing, and this clause is where it says so.

That is the shape of the whole Law. The other dismissals begin with a delivery and depend on what kind of delivery it was. This one begins with what a batter chose to do, and the delivery is beside the point.

Law 37, Obstructing the field: MCC Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code →

Law 36, Leg before wicket: MCC Laws of Cricket, 2017 Code →

••••••

No. 7 in By the Book, a series of 17.

NextFive conditions