At this moment I do not know the facts other that yes, it was an improper drop.
However, as I understand, the controversy came before Tiger signed his scorecard, and the committee told him "it is okay to sign your scorecard". Had he not been told to sign the scorecard, or if this rumor is wrong, then the penalty should have been disqualification under rule 6-6; and if the rumor is correct, then there should have been no penalty, as it states in the rules that a committee's decision is final.
To see the rule that provoked the controversy, see the drawing below:
Tiger hit his third shot from point "A", the ball hit the flagstick and bounced back in the hazard, which is marked with yellow, and last crossed the margin of the hazard on point "B".Rule 26 states that if a ball is in a hazard, the player has three options a) play from the hazard without penalty, in this case not possible since the ball is under water; or, under penalty of one stroke, b) play from as close as possible as the last shot was played (in this case "A") or c) keeping the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard ("B") between the flagstick and where the ball will be dropped, not closer to the hole and as far back as the player wants to drop (in this case, the dotted line).
In this case, the Rules allow the committee to draw a "ball drop" which also carries a penalty of one shot.
In short, Tiger could have dropped on "A", anywhere in the dotted line as long as he drops in bounds, or the ball drop area, but Tiger, by his own account, dropped on "D", a few feet behind point "A", in other words, not under Rule 26.
Now, lets be clear: Rule 6 is clear: the player IS (and this is not a "Clintonesque IS" - you know, "it depends of what the word 'is' means") responsible for knowing the Rules of Golf and the rules of the competition. So Tiger, should have known where to drop, his caddy, who gets paid in the millions, the same. The rules official on the scene also knows the rules, however, no one knew that he had dropped a few feet behind until Tiger mentioned it in the press interview!! That is why I believe that Tiger did not realize he had broken a rule, and this is where the story begins:
In the past, Tiger has had some favorable rulings (who can forget the 3 ton loose impediment in Phoenix, or his shot over the clubhouse while playing in Akron which should have been out of bounds, but wasn't). However, in this case, a new rule was in effect that in essence takes the responsibility away from the player and leaves an option to the committee, and that is rule 33-7. To me, the interpretation was a bit of a stretch, but I'll live with it and so will Tiger.
The question that will remain in my mind (and probably others) is: if this happened to Tianlang Guan, the 14 year old from Taiwan who was penalized a stroke for slow play on Friday, would they have come to the same conclusion? Or would they have penalized Tiger for slow play? I seriously doubt it.
It is a sign of the times: Since golf is not a game anymore but a multimillion dollar business, for the sake of ratings, you are not responsible for your own actions anymore.
P.S. I am told that someone said that it is the same thing that Arnold Palmer did in 1958, when he won. That is not correct. Arnold had a doubt on how to proceed. He played a second ball after his ball was embedded on #12 and did not know if he could lift it and drop it or not. So, he played the embedded ball, then he played the second ball, he scored 5 and 3. On hole #14, the rules official came and said he had a drop, thus he could count the 3 scored with the second ball. FOR THE RECORD, ARNOLD DID NOT SIGN AN INCORRECT SCORECARD.