I, too, think sometimes the rules are harsh but, they are there for a reason. If not enforced across the board, there is too much room for interpretation. These rules, I believe, have been developed over many years and many experiences.
I believe the penalty is appropriate.
But the penalty assessed already required "interpretation." If we believe that Tiger wasn't intentionally cheating, then it follows logically that Tiger--a reasonable, educated, experienced professional golfer who was INCHES from the infraction, aware of the consequences for moving the ball, and watching closely--did not see it. It required video editors after the fact reviewing stills from tape to catch the infraction. They had to closely scrutinize the facts and reference the rules to assess the penalty. That is the very definition of "interpretation." It's not a significant leap in facts, logic, or interpretation to conclude next that the ball moved so slightly that "replacing" it to its original position would be a fruitless endeavor and thus determine it unnecessary to assess an additional penalty for failure to replace the ball.