The India cricket captain MS Dhoni believes his side are getting the raw end of the deal from umpires as payback for the team's ongoing refusal to use the Decision Review System.
The powerful Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) are continuing to block the use of DRS in any games involving India.
Australian batsman George Bailey should have been out first ball in Tuesday's ODI at the WACA when he gloved a delivery through to the wicketkeeper.
Hot spot showed the ball tickled Bailey's glove on the way through, and snicko strengthened the evidence.
But with the umpire giving Bailey not out - and no DRS available for the game - India simply had to accept the decision.
Had Bailey been given out, Australia would have been in all sorts of trouble at 21-3.
Instead, Bailey went on to make 112 in a 242-run stand with Steve Smith (149) to lift Australia to a five-wicket win.
When asked whether his position on DRS had changed, Dhoni said "are you indirectly saying that we don't get decisions in our favour because we don't use DRS?"
"We need to push the umpires to take the right decision.
"You have to see how many 50-50 decisions don't go in our favour."
When asked whether he felt his team might not be getting the 50-50 calls in their favour because of their stance on the DRS, Dhoni said "I may agree with you."
Dhoni said the variables on DRS were simply too great, with too much emphasis being placed on the umpire's original decision.
For example, if a batsman is given not out following an appeal for lbw, the decision can only be overturned if DRS shows more than 50 per cent of the ball is hitting the stumps.
But if the original decision was out, then even one per cent of the ball hitting the stumps is enough for the batsman to be dismissed.
"DRS shouldn't be umpire's decision justification system," Dhoni said.
Bailey broke out into a grin when asked whether he had gotten any glove to the ball.
"It just caught the thigh guard a little bit I reckon," Bailey said.
"It would have been interesting on DRS to have a look at that, wouldn't it."