Former BCCI umpire Anil Chaudhury offered a fresh perspective on the controversial dismissal of Angkrish Raghuvanshi, who was later fined by the BCCI for his on-field outburst over the decision during Kolkata Knight Riders’ IPL 2026 match against the Lucknow Super Giants on Monday at the Ekana Stadium.
Raghuvanshi was given out for obstructing the field after a throw from Mohammed Shami hit him when he dived to reach the crease. LSG appealed, and the on-field umpires referred it to the third umpire for review. Third umpire Rohan Pandit went through the replay and reckoned the batter had changed his direction when running back to the striker’s end after Cameron Green had turned him down for the single, resulting in the dismissal.
According to Clause 37.1.4 of the IPL 2026 Playing Conditions: “If a batter, in running between the wickets, significantly changes direction without probable cause and thereby obstructs a fielder’s attempt to effect a run out, the batter should, on appeal, be given out. It is irrelevant whether a run out would have occurred.”
Explained: Why Angkrish Raghuvanshi was given out for obstructing the field in LSG vs KKR match
However, on his social media handle, Chaudhury said that Pandit should have checked whether Raghuvanshi deliberately changed his direction. “There are a couple of important things. Number one, change in direction. But simply a change in direction does not mean the batter is out. It is about ‘willful’ change in direction. This must be deliberate, because there are many cases where the batter runs straight without changing direction yet still obstructs the field. You have to look at intent, the impact and whether it was deliberate. The batsman ran, stopped and turned, and he went in that direction using the same momentum. The batsman has very little time. For a batter to run in a straight line, that’s not possible under pressure,” he explained.
As for the probable cause, Chaudhury admitted that while Raghuvanshi did watch the ball, given that he played the shot in front of him, which is rather natural for a batter, he argued that at the time of diving, he did not look at the throw. “When playing in front, they often see the ball. Also, keep in mind that when he dived into the crease, he wasn’t watching the ball,” he added.
Out or not out, then?
Chaudhury said that in deciding verdicts on such dismissals, a real-time view offers a better perspective than watching replays. He eventually reckoned Raghuvanshi should not have been given out.
“I think it’s beneficial to watch in real time. An obstruction in the field replay will always make you feel it was out. You will get a better sense of it watching it in real time. It’s an opinion call. TV umpires don’t even have the help of soft calls these days. I personally felt ‘not out’ was a better call.”