The Umpire Decision Review System proved less contentious at the Gabba than in Dunedin on Friday, but it nonetheless made for several head-scratching moments. The first came when Mitchell Johnson challenged Ian Gould's decision to rule him caught behind to a Sulieman Benn delivery he claimed not to have nicked.

Because the edge of Johnson's bat was turned away from Hot-Spot, no firm evidence was uncovered to dispute Gould's original ruling. It was eventually upheld, even though Johnson seemed adamant he had not come into contact with the ball.

"Originally I thought I wasn't out and that's why I went to the referral," Johnson said. "It came back that I was out so I guess you just accept those decisions. I still think the system works pretty well."

The UDRS was in the spotlight again later in the day, this time for West Indies' injudicious use of it. Chris Gayle and Shivnarine Chanderpaul both challenged lbw verdicts that never appeared likely to be overturned, opening themselves to accusations of ego influencing their decision-making.

"We thought they were pretty much out but if that's how they want to use it that's their choice," Johnson said. "There's talk about how to use the referral and when to use it, but obviously they didn't think they were out at the time and that's what it's there for."

Denesh Ramdin, West Indies' not out batsman who will not have the luxury of a review for the remainder of the innings, admitted the tourists had yet to settle upon a UDRS strategy. "Generally if it's an important batsman or a batter who is set we will try to use it," Ramdin said.

"Unfortunately it didn't come off for us today. I'm still trying to get used to it. Some series we use it, some we don't. It has it's bad side and it has it's good side."

Alex Brown is deputy editor of Cricinfo