Because the rules forbidding grounding your club in a hazard are so well-known and clearcut I suspect there would be a DQ. I think what the committee is really saying in this case is that the particular rule that was broken is a bit legalistic and as a result they're willing to give a competitor a pass if they followed the intent rather than the letter of the law. Okay by me, but it feels like more of an emotion-based rather than logic-based decision.
Very interesting thoughts, and I think sums up what is important about this debate way above and beyond Woods, golf, or sports. I totally agree with your assessment that the intent of the law was followed. What confuses me is that you consider this an "emotional" decision - whereas I believe that intent being followed over the letter is actually the essence of "logic." Following the letter of the law, when the letter abuses the intent of the law, is by definition tyranny.
There is another factor here too. The "authorities" - the Masters - have decided not to have rules stewards following each group the way some tournaments do. So they are in a way acknowleding their part in the malfeasance being committed, and conclude, in a perfectly logical way, that the most severe penalty possible is not within the intent or spirit of the game in such a situation.