Well, Evolution didn’t pass without any controversy. However, I personally didn’t like the idea of Tom Cannon saying how he learned his lesson and that if another Judgement happened they’d just let it happen.
I've already expressed my opinions on Judgement in the other thread. However, I still believe that Judgement should not be a factor in Third Strike tournaments. It's simply an impractical judging system. The problem with what happened at Evolution, in my opinion, was that the staff was not prepared for Judgement if someone had already won a round. The ruling to replay the match was based on if Judgement came up after both players had already won a round. The way I see it, there are three possible solutions. One: Do what the game does when there's a double KO. Both players win a round. If it was the first round, the player who wins the next round wins. If only one person has won a round, then that player wins. If both players had one round, then replay the game, both players must pick the same character and super. Sadly, this is how I think it should be, which means that Ricky would have won. Two: Do it GGXX style. If one person has already won a round then only the player who doesn't have a round already gets a round. If the player that already won a round wins the judgement, then replay the game. Three: Have some staff record how much super each player has then reset the match, giving each player that much super before restarting whatever conditions were in effect at the start of the round. (Meaning which players had won how many rounds.) I guess method three was what happened at EVO2003. In any event, I think that it'd be a good idea to have some sort of general acceptance on how to handle Judgment calls in the future, as I think letting Judgement stand is a horrible idea.