From Jim Coleman's account, he saw the entire sequence of events, from up close. He saw Tiger's drive land and hop forward. That would seem to make embedding close to impossible. He saw everyone who approached the ball, and in his opinion there was no chance it got stepped on. He saw Tiger pick up the ball before the official even saw it, then get the approval, and proceed to drop it.
Again, maybe there's more to it. But it's easy for me to see why Jim thinks he saw a rules violation; and why the announcers questioned it as well. Not a whole lot could have taken place that he didn't see.
He expressed his biases in the very first sentence. He said he thinks he saw Tiger cheat. I think it sounds real likely, and would like to learn if there's more to the story.
All you who seem aghast that Jim would question Tiger: do any of you grant it's possible Tiger broke a rule? If so, isn't finding the truth more important than critiquing the eye witness' syntax?
If not, what do you make of what Jim saw? Is he lying? Did his eyes betray him?