Rules are rules people, the argument that it's just a game while not necessarily a bad one in its own right is too laissez-faire for a - fair - competitive tournament. Once you start imposing penalties on the basis of how much the infringement affected the round you go down a road with simply too many variables to be able to make consistent, reliable and therefore fair decisions; not to mention uncontroversial.
While it's true the reset didn't impact the round at all, a volley had not even been fired in that round, the fact remains that a rule was put in place, it was broken and the incident was punished accordingly. It's easy to see how participants resetting rounds can be exploited for gain and it makes good sense to deny them that right under threat of penalty, regardless of the state of the round. Rigid enforcement of the rules might seem draconian, but it's the best way to be consistent. Consistency is good in that it's predictable and without prejudice.
I will, however, question the rule stating that if a referee is present at a match it will be impossible to change scores and review rounds after its conclusion. I thought USE did a good job reffing that match but I do believe he missed a breach of Rule 22 in the last round by Nr 24 that as a result went unpunished. The ref is one man, human and subject to error at times and also incapable of overseeing every aspect of the battle at once; if there is video evidence available to help reach the correct decision why not use it?
