I think it's kind of funny but very telling to read some of the posts on here of some type of moral opprobrium that some feel when they watch some of the Rules situations, interpretations and such that happen "on Tour".
First of all, the concept and principle behind something like "obstructions" in golf to which free relief has always been granted simply has to do with interference on golf courses from things the Rules always considered to be not part of the playing of the game on its natural field of play.
In a sense the way some of us look at what happens on Tour is sort of like the way some members of clubs only look at architecture in the context of their own game and no one else's.
When most of us think of free relieve from "Obstructions" we think of artificially surfaced roads, junction boxes, bridges and such as the normal course of "obstructions" to which free relief is granted.
Now, for those of us who are older who ever lived in small towns just imagined how much everything changed when the Barnum/Bailey circus rolled into town on their lengthy train.
Now imagine about ten Barnum/Bailey circuses rolling into town and into one place---that week's "PGA Tour" golf course.
The "obstruction" principle basically stays the same but the problem in a golf Rules context probably magnifies about 100 times compared to anything that we can relate to or are used to in the way we play golf with obstructions and interference to the natural or normal way golf is played in the context of the Rules.
There's no real reason for any moral opporobrium in a Rules context re some of the things a player like Woods goes through. That guy plays on the center stage of about a dozen Barnum/Bailey circuses every time he tees it up in a tournament.