Former ICC umpire terms Raghuvanshi dismissal as 'not out’; also questions Kartik Tyagi decision

Even as cricket has mostly been riveting during IPL 2026, a couple of umpiring decisions have generated controversy and heated debate Angkrish Raghuvanshi being given out for obstructing the field during Kolkata Knight Riders’ match against Lucknow Super Giants, and the decision not to remove KKR pacer Kartik Tyagi from the attack despite bowling two consecutive waist-high full tosses (both deemed no-balls) in the final over of the same match at Ekana Stadium on Sunday.

During the fifth over of the KKR innings, Raghuvanshi played the ball towards mid-on and set off for a run before being sent back by non-striker Cameron Green. As Raghuvanshi turned and headed back to his crease, a throw from LSG’s Mohammed Shami towards the striker’s end struck the diving batter. LSG appealed, and on-field umpires Abhijeet Bengeri and Keyur Kelkar referred the matter to TV umpire Rohan Pandit, who declared Raghuvanshi out for obstructing the field. Pandit ruled that Raghuvanshi had “changed his direction of movement” after seeing the ball thrown at him. The decision triggered a heated debate, with commentators calling the batter “unfortunate” to be dismissed in such a manner.

A disgruntled Raghuvanshi, who struck the boundary cushion with his bat and threw his helmet into the dugout, was fined 20% of his match fees and also received one demerit point for breaching Level 1 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players. Although KKR beat LSG in a thrilling Super Over, the match was marred by the controversial dismissal.

However, former international umpire Anil Chaudhary believes that Raghuvanshi was not out according to the rulebook. Chaudhary felt that the rule, in this case, favours the batter.

“Look, I didn’t feel that he was deliberate (in obstructing the ball). That change in direction was not wilful. It’s not just about a change in direction it must also be wilful, because the batsman had very little time. When a batsman plays in front of the wicket, he is watching the ball, so he didn’t have much time to react. Turning 180 degrees doesn’t give the batter much scope. I felt that declaring him not out would have been a better call,” Chaudhary, who officiated in 12 Tests, 49 ODIs and 64 T20Is, told TOI on Wednesday.

As per the MCC’s Law 37.1.4: “For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batsman, while running between the wickets, has significantly changed direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt to effect a run-out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out obstructing the field. It is not relevant whether a run-out would have occurred.”