Obstructing the Field — Hashim Amla 2012

England vs South Africa cricket in 2012 was a battle of two world-class teams. South Africa, ranked number one in the world, were visiting England for a high-stakes Test series. The Lord's Test was a marquee fixture at cricket's most historic ground, and both teams brought their best squads.

Obstructing the field — Law 37 — is one of cricket's most rarely invoked modes of dismissal. The Law states that a batsman can be given out if they wilfully obstruct or distract the fielding side. The key word is "wilfully" — the obstruction must be deliberate. Accidental contact between a batsman and a fielder in the normal course of running is not obstruction.

The rarity of the dismissal means umpires are often unfamiliar with its nuances when it suddenly becomes relevant. Combined with the need to adjudicate intent — an inherently subjective task — obstructing the field decisions are among the most contentious in cricket. The Lord's 2012 incident brought all these difficulties into sharp focus.

During the third Test at Lord's, with England batting, a batsman played a shot that didn't go far. A run was attempted and a fielder moved quickly to gather the ball and effect a run-out. In the process, the batsman — running between wickets — appeared to change their line, bringing them into the path of the fielder.

South Africa appealed for obstructing the field. The on-field umpires conferred — the fielder had been impeded but the question was whether the batsman had done so deliberately or whether the collision was the natural consequence of two players competing for the same space.

The players gathered around the umpires, who took their time. Reviewing the Laws in their heads, they needed to determine intent. No technology assists with this — it is pure human judgment. After a prolonged discussion, the appeal was rejected.

During the third Test between England and South Africa at Lord's, an incident occurred where a batsman appeared to deliberately change direction to obstruct a fielder from effecting a run-out. The on-field umpires had to consider an appeal for "obstructing the field."

Obstructing the field is one of cricket's rarest modes of dismissal, and umpires are often unfamiliar with the nuances of the law when it arises in real time. The law requires that the obstruction be deliberate — a batsman who accidentally collides with a fielder should not be given out.

The incident required the umpires to make a subjective judgment about intent, which is always difficult. Was the batsman deliberately trying to prevent the run-out, or was the collision accidental as both parties tried to occupy the same space?

The appeal was ultimately not upheld, with the umpires judging the obstruction to be accidental. But the incident served as a reminder of how cricket's more obscure laws can suddenly become relevant and how difficult they are to adjudicate in the heat of a Test match.

“The batsman changed direction to get in the way. That's obstruction. We absolutely should have had that wicket.”

“I was running for my crease. The fielder came into my path. I didn't deliberately obstruct anyone.”

“The Law says 'wilfully.' That's the test. Was it wilful? Very hard to say with certainty in the heat of a Test match.”

“Obstructing the field is one of cricket's great philosophical puzzles. Intent is everything, but intent is invisible.”

South Africa accepted the umpire's decision without formal protest but post-match comments reflected their frustration. They felt the batsman had deliberately changed line to impede the fielder. The umpires' judgment was that the movement was part of normal running rather than a deliberate act.

The MCC was asked for commentary on the incident. They reiterated that the Law requires wilful obstruction and that accidental contact cannot qualify. The challenge of proving wilfulness in real time, without the benefit of slow-motion replay or the ability to question the batsman's intent, was acknowledged as a systemic limitation.

The 2012 Lord's series became famous for other reasons — primarily South Africa's dominant cricket — but the obstructing-the-field incident added a legal curiosity to the match's storyline.