I don't understand why this is a controversy.
If, for example, you designed a basketball hoop that was awesome in every way, except that every so often the spring of the net would spit the ball back out, no one would argue that it had a design flaw. And if an NBA playoff game was decided by said design flaw, it would be fixed no questions asked. There's a lot of random things that can happen before the ball goes through the hoop, but once it's through, there's no question that it should be a score, right?
That putt didn't not stay in because of the randomness that affects the game before it got there, it got spit after it was already in the heart of the thing. But Markus' spit is a better example, having the World's come down to the randomness of the equipment's design flaw is bunk.
But that doesn't change the fact that that's where the sport's at right now, and that (to extend the basketball analogy) sometimes professionals have to play on the equivalent of playground hoops with chain nets and steel backboards. It's a thorn for now, and one that everyone has to deal with, but I don't think pointing out the deficiency in the equipment equates to whining necessarily. I mean, at some point someone had to say, "hey, ya think we could come up with something a little sturdier than this peach basket?"