Stuart Broad Given Not Out Again — Ashes 2017

Stuart Broad occupies a unique place in Ashes folklore — not just as one of England's finest fast bowlers, but as a figure who has repeatedly found himself at the centre of caught-behind controversies. The 2013 Trent Bridge incident — where Broad stood his ground after a clear edge and was given not out — set the template for every subsequent Ashes in which he batted.

The 2017–18 Ashes series in Australia was the first since the Trent Bridge moment where England toured Down Under. Australian crowds had not forgotten, and the build-up to the series was laced with references to Broad's non-walk. The expectation — and desire — among Australian fans to see Broad dismissed in unambiguous circumstances was palpable before a ball had been bowled.

The Gabba in Brisbane hosted the first Test, traditionally the scene of Australian dominance over England in Ashes openers. The series began with the weight of recent history — Australia had whitewashed England 5–0 in 2013–14, and while the Ashes had been drawn in 2015 and 2017, Australia came in with confidence on home soil.

Broad's batting appearances in the 2017–18 series were inevitably going to attract scrutiny. He was batting low in England's order but was capable of important contributions, and any contact between ball and bat — whether the umpire or technology acknowledged it or not — was going to be examined through the microscope of 2013.

At the Gabba, Broad was involved in an appeal scenario that activated every Australian cricket fan's memory of Trent Bridge. A delivery struck the area of Broad's glove or bat, and the Australians went up immediately. The on-field umpire gave not out.

Australia's decision to review was not simply tactical — it was visceral. UltraEdge and HotSpot were deployed. The analysis was inconclusive in the critical window. There was a faint noise registered on UltraEdge, but no definitive deviation. The third umpire, applying the standard of "clear evidence to overturn," retained the not-out decision. Australia's frustration was amplified by history.

Stuart Broad found himself in another Ashes caught-behind controversy during the 2017-18 series in Australia. At the Gabba, Broad was struck on the pad and there was a question of whether the ball had also hit the bat.

Australia appealed and opted for a DRS review. The technology showed an inconclusive result — there was a faint noise on UltraEdge as the ball passed the bat, but no clear deviation. The third umpire retained the on-field not-out decision.

For Australian fans, it was a galling echo of the 2013 Trent Bridge incident where Broad had refused to walk after a clear edge. While this decision was far more marginal, the name "Stuart Broad" combined with "not out" and "Ashes" was enough to trigger Australian frustration.

The incident highlighted how DRS technology, while vastly improving decision-making, can still produce ambiguous results. The UltraEdge system is highly sensitive but cannot always distinguish between bat contact and pad contact when both occur simultaneously.

“I know what happened. I know whether I hit it or not. The DRS is there for a reason. That's the end of the conversation.”

“It was inconclusive. That means not out. That's how DRS works. We may not like it, but that's the system we all agreed to.”

“Every time Broad bats in Australia, 80,000 people remember 2013. I don't think that's fair, actually. He plays hard and within the laws.”

“UltraEdge is very sensitive. It can pick up noises from clothing, padding, even the breeze sometimes. Inconclusive is inconclusive.”

The aftermath was predictable in shape if not in specific detail. Australian media revisited 2013 at length. Former players called for stronger norms around walking or argued the DRS system was too lenient. English media noted — correctly — that the technology had done its job: inconclusive evidence means the on-field decision stands.

Broad himself remained characteristically unperturbed in public. He was accustomed to the controversy his name generated in Australia and had long since developed the psychological armour to dismiss it. His performances with the ball continued to be the story England wanted: Broad was among the key wicket-takers across the series.

The series itself ended in an Australian 4–0 victory — emphatic and convincing. England were outplayed in conditions that did not suit them. The caught-behind controversy, while prominent in the narrative, was a sideshow to the main story of Australian fast bowling dominance and England's batting fragility.