A recent women’s ODI clash between India and England at Lord’s sparked a familiar debate after England’s Tammy Beaumont survived a controversial “obstructing the field” appeal from India.
The Controversial Moment at Lord’s
The incident unfolded during the fifth over of England’s chase. India’s Deepti Sharma bowled a full delivery to opener Tammy Beaumont, who drove it towards Jemimah Rodrigues at short midwicket.
Rodrigues dove to her right, stopping the ball and quickly throwing it towards wicket-keeper Richa Ghosh. Beaumont, who had opted against a quick single, was casually walking back into her crease.
As she returned, she put her left foot over the crease, then appeared to attempt to kick the ball away with her right leg. While she didn’t make contact and there wasn’t a direct run-out chance, her intention to impede the ball seemed evident to the Indian fielders.
India’s Appeal and Umpire’s Decision
Both Rodrigues and Ghosh immediately noticed Beaumont’s action and gestured to the on-field umpires. India lodged an appeal, leading to a lengthy discussion among the umpires before the decision was referred to the TV umpire.
After reviewing multiple replays, the TV umpire ruled Beaumont not out, a decision that left many, including potentially the Indian team, puzzled given the sequence of events.
Understanding Cricket’s ‘Obstructing the Field’ Law
Cricket Law 37, “Obstructing the field,” is central to this controversy. Specifically, Law 37.1.1 states: “Either batter is out Obstructing the field if… while the ball is in play, she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.”
A crucial point of contention is whether Beaumont’s action was “wilful.” The law doesn’t exempt a batter from being out even if they are back inside their crease. The ball was still very much in play when the incident occurred.
Subsequent clauses specify that a batter is not out if the obstruction is accidental, to avoid injury, or in the case of the striker, to lawfully guard their wicket. Beaumont’s action did not appear to fall under any of these exemptions.
Echoes of Past Controversies
This incident brings to mind previous debates, including the “Mankading” controversy involving Deepti Sharma and Charlie Dean at the same venue in 2022. While different, both highlighted nuanced interpretations of cricket laws.
Another recent example saw David Bedingham in the WTC Final against Australia. The ball got stuck in his pads, and he removed it, leading to an appeal. In that instance, umpires were reportedly convinced the ball was dead, and the appeal was withdrawn.
Did the Decision Affect the Outcome?
Fortunately for India, the “not out” decision for Beaumont didn’t prove costly in the long run. At the time of the incident, she was batting aggressively on 25 runs from 16 balls.
However, she was eventually dismissed in the 11th over, scoring 34 runs from 35 balls, caught LBW by Sneh Rana. This slowed England’s momentum after a brisk start to their chase in the rain-affected 29-over-a-side match.
- Tammy Beaumont survived an “obstructing the field” appeal after appearing to kick the ball away.
- India appealed, but the TV umpire ruled “not out” despite the ball being in play.
- Law 37 states a batter is out if they “wilfully attempt to obstruct” the fielding side.
- The incident reignited debates about cricket’s complex laws and their interpretation.
Such moments continue to spark discussions among fans and pundits, underscoring the fine lines within cricket’s rulebook.
