1: The drop, as seen by the rules commitee after the fact; one could easily imagine that the player, having hit his ball into the hazard, looked at the three options available and decided to return to the spot from which the original stroke was taken. Without the player having left a marker (tee etc.), the rules officials made the correct decision that the player made his best effort to drop his ball as close as possible to where the original stroke was taken; and the replay did not prove otherwise.
After all, there may have been multiple divots in the approximate area and the rules committee would assume that a professional player would make the best effort to hit from the same spot. No infraction, no additional penalty
2) The player, after having looked at the 3 options available, decided to drop from the same spot that the original shot was taken and then decided that he could move further back on the same line using the available remedy in what would be option 2(in a line where the ball last crossed the hazard no lcoser to the hole etc.); thereby confusing two options.
Now let's examine option 2, what really happened, if we change one little fact. Put the original lie 2' - 3' down the edge of a downslope on the fairway. Moving back 3' puts replay on a flat area. For the average golfer, that 3' back is the difference between a low screamer and an easy lob. Not so much for a professional, but we all play under the same rules. Moving the ball in the imaginary case I have described is a reason for a DQ.
Had Tiger kept his mouth shut and said he played from where he thought his shot was, then the committee's decision would seem prescient. However, moving the drop spot to improve your chance of making a good shot is a violation of the rules that any professional player or caddy should never allow.
Frankly, when I got in last night and saw the interview, I was shocked that the number one player in the world thought he could improve his lie on a penalty shot, because that's exactly what he did, no question about it. The rules committee made an awful ruling after they knew about the violation. They sould have asked him to withdraw and if he declined, then DQ'd him (and sent him back to Q school to learn the rules)
I disagree, but I appreciate your well thought out analysis. I think, however, you are confusing illegally improving ones lie with the notion that every golfer on the planet owes it to himself and his competitors to get as good a drop as possible on any drop situation. And as you demonstrated, there are myriad of rules regarding his three options of drop areas.
The ball had no lie, unless lying with the fishes falls in that category. It was unplayable and he was following the procedure to put it back in play under penalty. As you point out, he had several options and he confused two of them. Under one of them, you can go back as far as you wish following a line from you to the hole. He hadn't chosen that option, so his drop was illegal (2 stroke penalty). He and his caddy should have known better and should have called the penalty on themselves.
But, they thought it was legal and when the committee reviewed it, while he was still on the course, they made a ruling that his drop was legal, thereby sanctioning the score that he subsequently signed. They reopened their review when they received the information from the interview with Woods. He was asked about it, explained what he did and that he thought it legal. They ruled differently and assessed a two stroke penalty. The DQ was not on the table at this point because the committee had previously ruled before he signed his card. They invoked Rule 33-1 because that was precisely the circumstance for which the rule was intended. Nick Faldo, after hearing the explanation from the committee, withdrew his earlier opinion and agreed that the committee did the right thing. So too did the USGA and the R&A.
One interesting point in all of this is that all other majors and most other PGA tournaments have rules officials on the course and they can be summoned quickly to make on the spot rulings. We have all seen this. The Masters does not do this, for reasons I do not know. They might want to reconsider that little tradition.