Obstructing the field: accidental contact is not enough
Read intention, injury avoidance and catch interference before interpreting this dismissal.
The Law concerns wilful obstruction
MCC Law 37 allows either batter to be dismissed for wilfully attempting to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action while the ball is in play, subject to its exceptions. It also has a rule for the striker deliberately using a hand not holding the bat when receiving the delivery.
A ball merely touching a running batter does not, by itself, establish that the batter acted wilfully. The action and circumstances need judging, not just the resulting deflection.
Accident and injury avoidance have exceptions
The Law excludes accidental obstruction and obstruction to avoid injury. A lawful second strike to protect the striker's wicket is also addressed, but catch interference has further conditions.
When wilful obstruction prevents a catch from a legal delivery, the striker can be dismissed even if the other batter caused the obstruction. This is why identifying who acted does not always identify who is out.
No-ball is not blanket protection
The obstruction Law can apply even when no-ball is called. Catch-related no-ball cases have their own detail, including the lawful defensive second-strike exception. Avoid assuming every apparent obstruction is ignored on a no-ball.
Returning the live ball to a fielder without a fielder's consent can also fall under this Law. The bowler gets no wicket credit for obstruction. Use the final decision and scoring record for a named incident; this guide is not evidence of a batter's intention.