Fairplay explains the fair play boundary between hit the ball twice and obstructing the field, including wicket defence, catches and scorecard effects.
Short answer: purpose, timing and a catch matter
The difference between Hit the ball twice and Obstructing the field is not simply whether the ball touched the bat twice. Under the MCC Laws, the key questions are what the batter deliberately did, whether a fielder had touched the ball, whether the action was only to guard the wicket, and whether the action stopped a catch. Law 34 deals with a wilful second strike before fielder contact. Law 37 covers wilful obstruction or distraction, including the special case where a batter prevents a catch. MCC Law 34 MCC Law 37
A second strike can therefore be lawful in a narrow defensive situation. A striker may use the bat or most parts of the body again, before a fielder touches the ball, solely to protect the wicket. That permission is not a licence to attack the ball again for runs or to stop a catch. If the defensive action wilfully prevents a catch, Law 37.3 can take priority even though Law 34.3 otherwise permits the second strike. Under MCC Law 31, an umpire does not give a batter out without an appeal from a fielder, although a batter who is out may leave the wicket without one.
- Law 34 asks whether a wilful second strike occurred before fielder contact.
- Law 34.3 protects a sole defensive second strike, but not one used to prevent a catch.
- Law 37 also covers broader wilful obstruction, accidental contact, injury avoidance and unauthorised return of the ball.
The three outcomes at a glance
The table below is a reading aid, not a substitute for the full Laws. The word “wilful” is important: an umpire must assess the event’s facts, not just the visible result. A scorecard entry can identify a dismissal category, but the total alone usually cannot reconstruct the purpose or sequence.
| Situation | Main test | Important exception or boundary | Scorecard effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawful second strike | Second contact is solely to guard the wicket, before a fielder touches the ball | It must not prevent a catch | All batting-side runs are disallowed; a No-ball signal and applicable five-run penalties can still stand |
| Hit the ball twice | Striker wilfully strikes the ball again before fielder contact, other than solely to guard the wicket | Returning the ball to a fielder and a post-fielder-contact strike are dealt with under Law 37 | Dismissal recorded as Hit the ball twice; no bowler credit |
| Obstructing the field | A batter wilfully obstructs or distracts, or uses an action covered by Law 37 | Accident, injury avoidance and lawful defensive second strike are exclusions, but preventing a catch has its own rule | Runs depend on whether a catch was prevented; no bowler credit |
| Returning the ball | Either batter uses bat or person to return the ball while it is in play without fielder consent | Consent changes this specific Law 37.4 question | Dismissal recorded as Obstructing the field; no bowler credit |
When a second strike can guard the wicket
Law 34.3 permits the striker to strike the ball a second or subsequent time with the bat, or with a part of the person other than a hand not holding the bat, when the sole purpose is guarding the wicket. The ball must not yet have been touched by a fielder. The permission also applies when the delivery is a No ball. In plain terms, a batter may stop a ball that is threatening the stumps, but the action must remain defensive rather than an attempt to create a scoring opportunity.
The exception has a sharp limit. A striker cannot claim wicket protection if the repeated action prevents the ball from being caught. Law 37.3 expressly addresses that caught-ball boundary, including a case in which the original contact was a lawful defensive second strike. The safe way to describe the rule is therefore: guarding the wicket is allowed, unless the wilful action also prevents a catch in circumstances covered by Law 37.3.
A lawful multiple strike does not produce batting-side runs. Under Law 34.4, the umpire allows the opportunity for a catch to be completed, disallows all runs to the batting side and returns a not-out batter to the original end. A No ball is still signalled if applicable, and applicable five-run penalties are dealt with as the Law states.
Hypothetical example: A right-handed striker edges a low delivery toward the stumps. Before any fielder touches it, the striker taps it away with the bat solely to stop the wicket being broken. If no catch is prevented and the action was genuinely defensive, this is the narrow Law 34.3 situation. The example is invented to illustrate the sequence; it is not a reported match decision.
- Before fielder contact is a required timing checkpoint.
- The purpose must be solely wicket protection.
- The No-ball status does not by itself remove the defensive permission.
- A lawful second strike still cannot be used to prevent a catch.
When Hit the ball twice can apply
Law 34.1.1 is the starting point for the dismissal named Hit the ball twice. While the ball is in play, it must strike some part of the striker or be struck by the bat. Before a fielder touches it, the striker must then wilfully strike it again with the bat or with the person, subject to the narrow wicket-guarding exception. The Law treats contact with the striker’s person as a strike, so the question is not limited to two bat contacts.
The sequence matters. If the second action occurs after a fielder has touched the ball, the event is not automatically a Law 34 dismissal; Law 34.2.2 points readers to Law 37.1. Similarly, a second strike intended to return the ball to a fielder is not out under Law 34.2.1, but Law 37.4 may apply if the return was made without the fielder’s consent. These cross-references stop a label from being applied without context.
Law 34.1.3 says the provision applies whether or not a No ball has been called. That does not erase the defensive exception. It means the umpire still works through the same timing, purpose and catch questions on a No ball. If the striker is dismissed under Law 34, the bowler does not receive credit for the wicket under Law 34.5.
Hypothetical example: A striker deliberately nudges a ball that has already touched the pad, then deliberately hits it again toward a vacant area before any fielder makes contact, with no wicket-protection purpose and no consent-based return. On the facts assumed, that is the kind of sequence Law 34.1.1 is designed to test. The label must still come from the umpire after assessing intent and the actual order of events.
When Obstructing the field can apply
Law 37 is wider than a second bat contact. Either batter may be out if, while the ball is in play, they wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action, outside the stated exceptions. The striker can also be out for wilfully striking the ball with a hand not holding the bat while receiving it, or for deliberately dropping or throwing the bat to affect the ball or prevent a dismissal other than Hit wicket. These are separate Law 37 routes, so the offence is not defined only by a batter touching the ball twice.
The Law also recognises facts that should not become a dismissal. Accidental obstruction is excluded. So is obstruction made to avoid injury, and so is a lawful defensive second strike under Law 34.3, subject to the caught-ball provision. That wording is why a commentator’s phrase such as “got in the way” is not enough to establish Obstructing the field. The umpire must decide whether the action was wilful and whether an exception applies.
Returning the ball is a distinct practical trap. Under Law 37.4, either batter is out Obstructing the field if, while the ball is in play and without a fielder’s consent, they use the bat or any part of the person to return the ball to a fielder. Consent is therefore material to that specific question. The fact that a return looks helpful does not itself settle the Law; nor does a short scorecard description reveal whether consent was present.
Hypothetical example: A batter deliberately kicks a live ball away from a fielder who is about to collect it, with no injury risk and no defensive need to guard the wicket. That imagined conduct fits the type of wilful interference Law 37 is concerned with. It is not a prediction about a real player or match.
- Wilful obstruction or distraction can involve words or actions.
- Accidental contact and injury avoidance are stated exclusions.
- Unauthorised return of the ball has its own Law 37.4 test.
- The bowler receives no credit for an Obstructing the field wicket under Law 37.6.
The caught-ball boundary changes the result
The narrowest and most easily missed distinction is the catch. Law 37.3 says a striker is out Obstructing the field when wilful obstruction or distraction by either batter prevents the striker being out Caught, subject to the No-ball wording in that Law. It applies even if the striker caused the obstruction while lawfully guarding the wicket under Law 34.3. Therefore, “I was protecting my stumps” does not end the analysis when the same act deliberately stops a catch.
For a delivery that is not a No ball, the caught-ball rule can apply when the obstruction prevents the catch. For a No ball, Law 37.3 has a further distinction: the batter who caused the obstruction or distraction can be out, but the striker is not out if the catch obstruction happened while defending the wicket with a lawful second strike. This is a rule-specific exception, so it should not be compressed into a general statement that No balls are always safe.
The score effect also changes. Where an Obstructing the field dismissal does not prevent a catch, completed runs before the offence are scored, alongside the applicable one-run No-ball or Wide penalty and other stated five-run penalties. If the obstruction prevents a catch, completed runs are not scored, although applicable five-run penalties stand; the fielding captain decides whether the non-striker or incoming batter faces the next delivery.
Returning the ball and reading the official record
The official scorecard may show the dismissal wording, runs, penalties and bowler credit. It may not show every fact behind the umpire’s judgment. A scorecard with no bowler credit is consistent with both Law 34.5 and Law 37.6, so that field alone does not distinguish the two dismissals. For background on reading scorecard evidence without overclaiming, see Fairplay’s Five Penalty Runs: Reading a Cricket Scorecard.
For current fixtures, Fairplay’s upcoming cricket page can establish the match context, while cricket statistics and cricket analysis are better suited to broader records and analytical context. None of those pages replaces the MCC Law or a competition’s current playing conditions. If the event is under a special tournament document, check that document before treating a general explanation as the final answer.
Questions, answered
Can a batter hit the ball twice to protect the stumps?
Yes, narrowly. MCC Law 34.3 permits a second or subsequent strike before fielder contact when it is solely to guard the wicket. It cannot be used to prevent a catch. Under Law 34.4, all runs to the batting side are disallowed, subject to the Law’s stated No-ball and five-run-penalty treatment.
Is accidental obstruction out?
Not under Law 37.2 merely because contact occurred. The Law excludes accidental obstruction, obstruction to avoid injury and a lawful defensive second strike, subject to the separate caught-ball rule in Law 37.3. The umpires decide the facts.
Can a batter return the ball to a fielder?
Law 37.4 says either batter is out Obstructing the field if, while the ball is in play and without a fielder’s consent, they use the bat or person to return it to a fielder. Consent is part of that specific test.
Does the bowler get credit for either dismissal?
No. MCC Law 34.5 says the bowler does not get credit for a Hit the ball twice wicket, and Law 37.6 says the same for Obstructing the field.
Can a lawful second strike still lead to Obstructing the field?
Yes, in the caught-ball situation. Law 37.3 says wilful obstruction that prevents the striker being caught can result in Obstructing the field even when the striker was lawfully guarding the wicket under Law 34.3, subject to the No-ball exception stated in that Law.
Sources and evidence
- MCC Law 34: Hit the ball twice
Primary MCC Laws page; supports Law 34.1–34.5, the wicket-guarding exception, runs and bowler credit.
- MCC Law 37: Obstructing the field
Primary MCC Laws page; supports Law 37.1–37.6, exceptions, caught-ball treatment, returning the ball, runs and bowler credit.
- MCC Law 31: Appeal
Primary MCC Laws page; supports the general requirement for a fielder’s appeal before an umpire gives a batter out.
- Cricket Rules – Law 37 – Obstructing The Field
Independent corroboration of the Law 37 structure and the umpire’s wilful-versus-accidental judgment.
- Cricket Hit the Ball Twice Rules: When Is the Batter Out?
Independent explainer checked 16 October 2026; useful corroboration and reminder to check competition conditions.
Scheduled facts and sourced history are separate from live match data. Source attribution does not imply affiliation with IPL, BCCI, ICC or players.