Ben Stokes Given Out 'Obstructing the Field' vs Australia

Ben Stokes in 2015 was already one of England cricket's most exciting and volatile talents — an all-rounder of rare ability, with a gift for both incendiary fast bowling and counter-attacking batting. He was the kind of player who could win a match in a session or get himself dismissed (or into trouble) with a single moment of impulsiveness. His career arc would eventually lead to the England captaincy and one of Test cricket's greatest redemption stories, but in 2015 he was still in the "exciting but unpredictable" phase.

The second ODI against Australia at Lord's in September 2015 was part of a high-profile series. Australia had just won the Ashes and were full of confidence. England were rebuilding. The series mattered for England's credibility in the limited-overs format, which was itself undergoing one of its regular upheavals in selection and strategy.

"Obstructing the field" is one of cricket's rarest dismissals — so rare that most recreational cricketers will never see it, let alone experience it. In the Laws of Cricket, a batsman can be given out if he wilfully obstructs a fielder, including by deflecting a throw with his body or hand. The crucial word is "wilfully" — and that word was at the heart of everything that followed on a bizarre afternoon at Lord's.

England were batting and Stokes had been at the crease for a solid contribution. The match was finely balanced, and Stokes — who tends to play matches at a specific emotional temperature — was fully engaged. Playing a shot into the off side, he set off for a run, the ball going to Mitchell Starc in the field.

Starc gathered and threw directly at the stumps to attempt a run-out. The throw was quick and accurate, heading straight at the stumps — and, by coincidence, also heading directly at Stokes. He was mid-crease, running, and the ball was coming at him fast. With what appeared to be a protective reflex — or possibly deliberate deflection, depending on who you believed — Stokes raised his hand and the ball struck it, deflecting away from the stumps.

Australia appealed immediately, with the specific intensity of a team who knew exactly what law they were invoking. The umpires conferred. The third umpire was consulted. Several minutes passed. And then the finger went up. Stokes was out, obstructing the field. The Lord's crowd, which had been watching the deliberations like spectators at a high-court hearing, responded with significant displeasure.

During the 2nd ODI at Lord's in 2015, Ben Stokes was dismissed in one of the rarest and most controversial ways in cricket — obstructing the field. After playing a shot and setting off for a run, Mitchell Starc fielded the ball and threw it at the stumps. Stokes raised his hand to protect himself, and the ball deflected off his hand. It was the cricketing equivalent of getting a parking ticket for parking in a space that didn't have a meter — technically correct, utterly surprising, and deeply annoying.

Australia appealed for obstructing the field, and after a long deliberation that involved multiple conversations, furrowed brows, and the kind of rule-consulting normally seen in constitutional law cases, the umpires gave Stokes out. His reaction was one of complete disbelief — he stood at the crease staring at the umpires as if they'd just told him the earth was flat. His face was a portrait of bewilderment, confusion, and the specific frustration of a man who has been dismissed by a law he didn't know existed.

The Lord's crowd booed the decision lustily, and even some Australian players looked uncomfortable, wearing the expressions of men who had won an argument on a technicality and weren't entirely proud of it. The incident sparked a massive debate: was Stokes genuinely protecting himself, or was he deliberately blocking the throw? Replays were inconclusive, and the debate raged for days.

The dismissal was so unusual that many fans had never seen it before and had to Google "obstructing the field cricket" to confirm it was actually a real mode of dismissal. It was legal, it was correct (probably), and it was absolutely hilarious in its obscurity. Cricket, a sport with more laws than most countries, had produced a dismissal that even lifelong fans had to look up.

“I was just trying not to get hit. The ball was coming straight at me.”

“It's in the laws. It's a valid dismissal. We appealed in good faith.”

“He's only the seventh player in ODI history to be out that way. That's some kind of distinction.”

“The face he made. That face said everything. Absolute, total, genuine bewilderment.”

The decision caused immediate and extended controversy. Cricket law experts appeared on television to debate whether Stokes had acted "wilfully" — the key legal test for obstructing the field — or was simply protecting himself from a fast-moving projectile aimed at his body. The laws were ambiguous enough that informed people disagreed, which is cricket's way of saying it was messy.

Australia won the match, and some of their players expressed mild discomfort about the manner of the win, privately acknowledging that the appeal had been technically legitimate but perhaps not entirely in the spirit of the game. Stokes was diplomatic in public but reportedly less diplomatic in private, which was understandable given that he had been dismissed by a mode of dismissal that most players encounter only in rulebook quizzes.

The dismissal prompted another round of calls to clarify the Law around obstructing the field, particularly regarding the distinction between deliberate obstruction and self-preservation. The ICC eventually tightened the wording in subsequent editions of the Laws, though "obstructing the field" remained rare enough that the average fan would still need to Google it.