Umpiring Controversies

Stuart Broad Refuses to Walk — Ashes 2013

10-14 July 2013England vs Australia1st Ashes Test, Trent Bridge5 min readSeverity: Serious

Summary

Stuart Broad edged a ball clearly to slip but was given not out. He refused to walk, and Australia had no DRS reviews left.

Background

The 2013 Ashes series arrived at a moment of heightened anticipation on both sides. England, under Alastair Cook, were defending the urn they had won in Australia in 2010-11 — a landmark series that had broken a 24-year drought. Australia, meanwhile, were in transition. The retired Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey had left a leadership void, and Michael Clarke's side was a blend of veterans and exciting new talent, including a young spinner called Ashton Agar who would make history in this very Test.

The DRS (Decision Review System) had been a source of friction in Ashes cricket for years. Australia had been sceptical of the technology and the two boards had failed to agree on its implementation for the 2010-11 series. By 2013, DRS was in use for the Ashes, but each team was limited to a fixed number of reviews per innings. The strategic management of those reviews — knowing when to burn one and when to save one — had become a cricketing sub-discipline in itself.

The walking debate had long divided cricket along national and cultural lines. Australian cricket had a strong tradition of "walking" — batsmen voluntarily giving themselves out when they knew they had hit the ball, even if the umpire had not noticed. English cricket was more ambivalent: many professionals took the pragmatic view that it was the umpire's job to make decisions, and that batsmen who walked merely evened out the incorrect decisions that occasionally went against them. By 2013, walking had become rarer even in Australia, and its ethics were fiercely contested.

Build-Up

The first Ashes Test at Trent Bridge was a contest of absorbing drama from the outset. Australia, winning the toss and batting first, were dismissed for 280 despite a record-breaking debut innings from Ashton Agar, who came in at number 11 and clubbed a remarkable 98 in partnership with Phil Hughes. England's reply was faltering — they had slipped to 52/5 and were in serious danger of conceding a first-innings deficit when Stuart Broad came to the crease.

Broad was a capable lower-order batsman but his primary value to England was as a fast bowler. His innings in this context was about dogged resistance — giving the recognized batsmen time to regroup, soaking up pressure. Australia were bowling with controlled aggression, and Ashton Agar — already the hero of Australia's first innings — came on to bowl his off-spin. Broad shaped to play a defensive push and got a thick outside edge that flew straight to Brad Haddin behind the stumps.

Australia had already burned their two DRS reviews trying to overturn earlier decisions. When umpire Aleem Dar raised his finger — or rather, did not raise it, giving Broad not out — Australia captain Michael Clarke looked to his team for a review. But there were none left. Broad stood at the crease and made no move to walk. The tension on the field was palpable, the disbelief visible on Australian faces.

What Happened

During the first Ashes Test at Trent Bridge, Stuart Broad edged an Ashton Agar delivery straight to Michael Clarke at first slip. The edge was enormous and clearly visible on replay — even Broad admitted later he knew he'd hit it.

However, umpire Aleem Dar gave him not out. Australia had already used their DRS reviews, so they couldn't challenge the decision. Broad stood his ground and went on to score 65, a crucial contribution in a match England won by just 14 runs.

The Australian media and fans were furious. Newspapers ran front-page headlines calling Broad a cheat. Australian crowds booed him relentlessly for the rest of the series.

Broad defended himself by saying it was the umpire's job to give him out and he was under no obligation to walk. The incident reignited the debate about the spirit of cricket versus playing within the rules.

Key Moments

1

Stuart Broad edges an Ashton Agar delivery to Brad Haddin behind the stumps — a clear, thick edge

2

Umpire Aleem Dar gives Broad not out — Australia believe it was a straightforward caught-behind

3

Michael Clarke looks for a DRS review but Australia have exhausted both their reviews

4

Broad stands his ground and refuses to walk, despite later admitting he knew he had hit it

5

Broad goes on to score 65 runs in a crucial partnership that puts England in a strong position

6

England win the first Test by 14 runs — a margin that would not have been possible without Broad's innings

Timeline

Day 1

Australia bat first and are dismissed for 280, with debutant Ashton Agar scoring a record 98 from number 11

Day 2

England collapse to 52/5 in their first innings before Broad comes to the crease

Day 2, afternoon

Broad edges Ashton Agar's off-spin to Brad Haddin — a clear thick edge — but umpire Aleem Dar gives not out

Day 2, afternoon

Australia discover they have no DRS reviews left to challenge the decision; Broad refuses to walk

Day 2-3

Broad scores 65, helping England to 364 and a crucial first-innings lead of 84

Day 5

England win the first Test by 14 runs — a margin that Broad's innings directly enabled

Notable Quotes

I'm not going to walk. The umpire is there for a reason. If I start walking, I may as well make all the umpiring decisions myself.

Stuart Broad

He knew he hit it. Every cricketer on the ground knew. That's not cricket — that's cheating.

Michael Clarke, Australia captain

The walking debate is finished. It ended right there at Trent Bridge. Nobody walks anymore and everybody knows it.

Shane Warne, commentator

It's the umpire's call. We support Stuart completely. That's the game.

Alastair Cook, England captain

Aftermath

The immediate aftermath was explosive. Australian media ran front-page headlines calling Broad a cheat, with the Sydney Morning Herald leading the charge. Social media was flooded with outrage from Australian fans, and several current and former Australian players publicly condemned Broad's behaviour. The phrase "cheating Pom" became a Twitter trending topic.

Broad's own response was characteristically unapologetic. In post-match interviews, he stated simply that it was the umpire's job to give him out and that he would do exactly the same again. He argued that if batsmen were expected to walk every time, the DRS would become redundant — and that the game had evolved beyond the walking convention. His England teammates rallied around him, with captain Alastair Cook supporting Broad's right to stand his ground.

Australia vowed to use Broad's refusal to walk as a motivational tool for the rest of the series. Crowds at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide booed Broad relentlessly whenever he batted or bowled in the return Ashes series. The hostility was intense but Broad seemed to relish it, feeding off the crowd's anger and producing some of his best bowling performances under heavy Australian pressure.

⚖️ The Verdict

Not out decision stood. Highlighted the limitations of the DRS review system and the walking debate.

Legacy & Impact

The Broad incident of 2013 became a landmark moment in the walking debate — arguably the moment the convention was declared permanently dead at international level. No significant cricketing body subsequently argued that batsmen had an obligation to walk, and the episode crystallized the modern consensus: umpires decide, DRS corrects, and batsmen are under no ethical obligation to self-dismiss.

The incident also exposed a critical tactical dimension of DRS management. Australia's failure to preserve a review for the Broad dismissal raised questions about how teams allocated their challenges. In subsequent series, teams became more conservative with their reviews, treating them as precious resources to be kept in reserve for exactly this kind of situation. DRS coaching became a formal part of team preparation.

Broad himself seemed energized by the controversy. He went on to become one of the most effective fast bowlers in Ashes history, taking 32 wickets at extraordinary economy in the 2015 Ashes and producing a spell of 8/15 at Trent Bridge that demolished Australia. For all the Australian hostility towards him, Broad extracted a particular pleasure from tormenting them — and the 2013 incident was the origin of that contentious relationship.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why didn't Broad walk despite hitting the ball?
Broad took the position that it was the umpire's job to give him out, not his responsibility to self-dismiss. He argued that walking was not an obligation under the Laws of Cricket, and that in a professional Test match, decisions belonged to the officials. He later admitted he knew he had hit it but maintained his decision to stand was correct.
Why couldn't Australia use DRS to review the decision?
Australia had already used both of their DRS reviews earlier in England's innings. Under the DRS rules, each team is allocated a limited number of reviews per innings. Once those are exhausted, the on-field umpire's decision is final, regardless of whether it appears incorrect.
How important was Broad's innings of 65?
Extremely important. England were 52/5 when Broad came in, in serious danger of losing the first-innings initiative. His 65 helped England reach 364, giving them an 84-run first-innings lead. England eventually won the match by just 14 runs — a margin that would not have been possible without Broad's contribution.
Was Broad ever formally disciplined for refusing to walk?
No. Refusing to walk is not against the Laws of Cricket or the ICC Code of Conduct. Broad faced no official sanction. The controversy was entirely moral and ethical rather than legal. The Laws of Cricket explicitly place all decisions with the umpires, not the players.
Did the incident change the rules around DRS?
Not immediately. However, the Broad incident highlighted the risk of DRS reviews being exhausted before critical decisions. Subsequent discussions about DRS management led to some boards exploring whether teams should receive additional reviews for clearly incorrect decisions, though no universal rule change resulted from this specific incident.

Related Incidents