But the competition was still under way in the Wie case. Had that been the Monday after the tournament, then the results would have stood. In the OP's case, yes, he made the case to the committee in a timely manner, and if they failed to act on or investigate it, then shame on them.
I don't know that that's true.
Reference the story of Blayne Barber:
http://golfweek.com/news/2012/nov/05/blayne-barber-disqualifies-himself-six-days-after-/
Now, in that case, Barber disqualified himself, but the ruling would be the same had some reporter noticed that he penalized himself incorrectly and went to the USGA 6 days after the tournament. It meshes perfectly with Decision 34-1b/1.5 that turtleback referenced.
In the Wie case the results would have stood because she was unaware that a breach had occurred. If the player is aware of the breach, then there is no statute of limitations. DQ can then be applied anytime. Barber was aware that he may have committed a breach. From all of the available information in the Wie case, she was not.
Some will say that she was aware of what she had done and was trying to cheat, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt since no one has ever provided any evidence to support that contention. What I think she was doing is trying to get the best drop possible, and as a result she accidentally ended up 6" too close to the hole. That is an easy mistake to make, and not always apparent at the time. Since the breach was caught before the tournament was finished, the DQ penalty was applied.
