Hazlewood takes controversial first wicket

India's reluctance to accept the Decision Review System in its current form has come back to bite them again, with another umpiring decision going against them on day one of the second Commonwealth Bank Test in Brisbane.

Josh Hazlewood's dismissal of Cheteshwar Pujara just after lunch - the debutant's first Test wicket - came via a deflection behind off what replays showed was the grille of the batsman's helmet.

Umpire Ian Gould raised his finger, presumably thinking the ball had grazed Pujara's glove through to wicketkeeper Brad Haddin.

India were also on the wrong end of some incorrect decisions during the first Commonwealth Bank Test in Adelaide, which they lost by 48 runs.

Opener Shikhar Dhawan was incorrectly given out caught behind by umpire Gould in the second innings, while Ajinkya Rahane was dismissed caught at short leg by umpire Marais Erasmus, despite the ball hitting the pad.

Australia off-spinner Nathan Lyon also felt aggrieved by some incorrect decisions in the second innings, including two lbw appeals that were turned by Erasmus, which replays showed would have been reversed had the DRS been in place for this series.

India have long opposed the use of the DRS, which they says uses technology that is inconsistent across the world and not 100 per cent reliable.

Speaking to cricket.com.au in August, Australia's players had mixed views about the system, which was first used in a Test series in 2009.

Michael Clarke, who is sitting out this match with a hamstring injury, said the technology should be uniform across all international matches in all countries.

"I would like to see it one way or the other," Clarke said.

"I’d like to see that either DRS is in for Test cricket in every country, or DRS is not in rather than pick and choose who you are playing to work out whether you’re going to use DRS or not.

"I would like to see it be consistent because I think it makes a difference.

"Statistically for players, it makes a difference with DRS and I’m not bothered either way – it’s either out or it’s in, but I would like to see it one or the other."

Haddin agreed, adding that the game had lost sight of what the DRS was initially introduced for.

"I think we’ve got to remember with DRS that it was brought into the game to get rid of the howler," Haddin said.

"Not the 50-50 calls, it was brought into the game to get rid of the shocker.

"So I actually think it should be taken out of the hands of the players, I think the umpire should have the luxury if he needs to take a decision upstairs he should take it upstairs.

"Because I think teams now can maybe use it as a tactic, maybe try and get one of those 50-50 calls to go your way in a big moment of a game, and I don’t think it was brought in for that."

Allrounder Shane Watson, who has often been criticised for his poor use of the DRS, joked that India's opposition to the system might work in his favour this summer.

"I’ve got a view on the way that I use it, which is not very well," Watson said with a laugh.

"For me personally, I’d prefer it not to be there.

"It’s always been that you’ve got to respect the umpire’s decision.

"Occasionally, of course, there’s been decisions that haven’t gone a team’s way and it’s affected the outcome of a game.

"I understand the reason why DRS is in for those instances, but for the 50-50 ones where people aren’t sure anyway, that’s not what it’s there for, so I would certainly prefer the umpire just to make the decision and you’ve got to accept the good with the bad."