Precedent says Scott should have been penalized.
However, with a 10 to 12 MPH, non-gusting wind a factor throughout the day, physics might suggest that he shouldn't have been. And, who knows, maybe that's why he wasn't. It would be interesting to get the official's explanation/rationale.
Said official, in any case, made his ruling; and so all the shoulda's and coulda's we can muster are just academic.
What will be interesting, though, is whether what happened today ultimately becomes codified as "Decision 18-2a/31" (or whatever number to the right of the slash it would actually be) and what, then, would be the explanation/rationale. If there really isn't much of one (including the provable aforementioned wind), then without something new upon which the official could hang his hat, then it's arguable that precedent should have ruled; and pursuant to precedent, Scott should have been penalized.
Whether it would have changed the outcome, though, is debatable since the pressure finally so took its toll on Scott ten holes later that it would border on folly to argue that he would have been much worse off had he been penalized. Under the weight of it all, Scott bogied holes 14 thru 17, and Els birdied 18 to even it at -7 going in to Scott's 18...
...which he also bogied. All Scott needed was to par on 18 to force Els into a playoff, for which Els was staying warmed-up in the belief that it would happen right up to the instant that he heard the crowd bemoaning Scott's missed put for par on 18, making Els the winner.
And here's the thing: Better that Els won that way than everyone saying, for time immemorial, that Scott might have won, had he not been penalized. That he wasn't penalized, then, and still lost, eliminated all such speculation.
For those purposes, then, it was a good thing that Scott wasn't penalized; and so in that sense, then, the official might have been downright prophetic.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com