Caught Behind in Cricket: Edges, Gloves, DRS, and Famous Controversies
How caught behind dismissals work in cricket — the technical difference between an edge and a glove, how DRS technology changed caught behind decisions, the Snickometer and UltraEdge explained, and the most controversial caught behind decisions in cricket history.
The caught behind dismissal — where the ball deflects off the batter's bat or glove into the wicketkeeper's hands — is both common and contentious. It accounts for approximately 15–20% of all wickets in Test cricket and is the dismissal type most regularly disputed, because the thin edges that produce the deflection are often audible to the fielding side but invisible to the batter, creating genuine disagreement about whether contact occurred. The introduction of the Decision Review System (DRS) has transformed how caught behind decisions are adjudicated, though it has also introduced new controversies of its own.
Edge vs Glove: The Legal Distinction
Under the Laws of Cricket, a batter is out Caught if the ball is caught by a fielder after touching the bat or the hand (or glove) holding the bat, without bouncing. The crucial phrase is 'the hand holding the bat' — this means the glove counts as part of the bat for dismissal purposes. If the ball deflects off the batter's glove (even the top of the glove, the wrist area, or the inside of the thumb) onto the keeper's gloves, it is a legitimate caught dismissal. However, if the ball strikes a forearm, elbow, or any part of the body not holding the bat, it is not out caught behind — those contacts may be adjudicated as wides or leg-byes, or simply dead. The practical consequence: batters who are struck on the gloved hand need to know whether the ball touched the glove or any other part of the hand before it reached the keeper.
How DRS Changed Caught Behind Decisions
Before DRS, caught behind decisions relied entirely on on-field umpires who had to judge from their position whether a deflection had occurred, often from a sideways angle with the batter's body potentially obscuring the bat-ball contact. The result was a significant proportion of incorrect decisions in both directions — batters given out on thick nicks that hit pad before glove, and genuine thin edges going past the umpire's ear undetected. DRS's audio analysis (UltraEdge) was transformative specifically for caught behind because it introduced objective evidence of contact into what had been a purely observational decision. The typical caught behind DRS review sequence: fielding team appeals, umpire gives Not Out, team reviews, third umpire examines UltraEdge waveform for a spike corresponding to the moment the ball passed the bat, then checks Hot Spot for a friction mark. If both show evidence of contact, the decision is reversed.
Famous Caught Behind Controversies
Caught behind controversies have shaped some of the most significant moments in Test cricket history. Andrew Flintoff's 2005 Ashes series included a famous incident where Australia's Ricky Ponting was given not out caught behind off a delivery that replays suggested had nicked the bat — had DRS existed in 2005, the decision may have been different, potentially altering the famous Edgbaston result. Kumar Sangakkara's long career produced multiple disputed caught behind decisions, as his soft hands and propensity to use the thick edge made the distinction between bat and pad contact genuinely difficult. Steve Smith's caught behind in the 2023 Ashes — involving competing Hot Spot and UltraEdge evidence — generated weeks of debate about the reliability and interpretation of DRS technology itself.
The 'Umpire's Call' Principle in Caught Behind Reviews
The DRS protocol for caught behind operates under the 'umpire's call' principle when evidence is inconclusive. If the on-field decision is Not Out and a review finds no conclusive evidence either way — the UltraEdge shows an ambiguous spike, Hot Spot shows nothing, but the ball may have barely brushed the outer edge — the on-field decision stands. This is intentional: DRS is designed to correct 'clear and obvious errors', not to make every decision. The practical consequence is that some genuine thin edges, too thin for either system to definitively detect, remain as Not Out — frustrating to fielding teams who saw the deflection but accepted as the correct operation of the evidentiary standard.
Frequently asked questions
How reliable are Hot Spot and UltraEdge for caught behind decisions in practice, and are there known failure modes that make a wrong decision after a DRS review more likely than generally understood?
Both Hot Spot and UltraEdge are valuable but imperfect technologies with specific known limitations, and the combination of the two was specifically designed to mitigate their individual weaknesses — though it does not eliminate the possibility of incorrect post-review decisions. Hot Spot limitations: Hot Spot works by detecting friction heat generated when the ball contacts a surface. Very thin edges — where the ball barely grazes the outer edge without significant friction — generate minimal heat and may leave no detectable mark. Hard, new balls in cold conditions generate less heat than worn balls in warm conditions, affecting sensitivity. Ball contact with thick pad, thigh pad, or arm guard can also generate heat marks that superficially resemble bat edges in some camera angles. The technology requires specific lighting and positioning to capture marks reliably — not all grounds use optimal Hot Spot setups. UltraEdge (Snickometer) limitations: stump microphones pick up audio from the vicinity of the pitch, including: wind noise, the stumps vibrating, the batter's footwork, and contact with pad/thigh pad. A spike in the audio waveform corresponding to the moment the ball passed the bat is evidence of contact, but not conclusive evidence of bat contact specifically — a ball brushing the leading edge of the thigh pad while simultaneously passing the bat can produce an ambiguous spike. The microphone's position (in the stumps) means contact sounds at the top of the bat handle or near the end of the bat arrive at slightly different times than pad contact, but the difference is milliseconds and not always diagnostically clear. Failure mode summary: the most common incorrect post-review decision is 'given out after review on thin edge when ball actually struck pad/thigh' or vice versa — where UltraEdge shows a spike but Hot Spot shows the mark on thigh pad rather than bat. Combined use of both technologies by an experienced third umpire minimises but does not eliminate these errors. The honest calibration: DRS caught behind reviews produce fewer incorrect decisions than pre-DRS on-field judgements — that is well-supported. But the post-review error rate is non-zero, and specific conditions (cold weather, new ball, ball near pad) increase error probability.