Hardspoon

The problem is that people think of the "fairway" as if it's some mystical land where you're guaranteed a good lie. Fairways are just an area of shorter grass, kept that way so that hitting straight tee shots presents an advantage (and, for other strategic reasons). Having your ball roll into a divot hole in the fairway is no different than having it roll up against a tree root in the rough. "Play it as it lies, except in the fairway, where you're guaranteed a good lie" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

OK...I'll try to get this moving... Zach Johnson at A2: Jim Furyk at A2: Is that kinda what you're looking for? (Although not sure Zach Johnson is the best example at A2...)? Just trying to get things started...

It creates an advantage to cheating and/or ignorance in two different cases...which you mention yourself: Right....and those are both huge! The first encourages ignorance of the rules (better not to know, you might get away with it) and the second encourages cheating. :

Maybe this is OT, and I obviously agree with you on the rule, but saying it's a "millennial way of thinking" is ridiculous. Sigh.

Interesting. If you watch their little intro video, there's a part where they say (paraphrasing): "What made the golf ball start in that direction, what made the golf ball curve in that direction, and what made the golf ball go that far." Here's the graphic for that last one: So, I'm guessing there's some element of launch angle leading to the 13, but it's still a weird number.

Yup - this part is even worse, to me, than the problem of someone who intentionally lies (saying they "didn't know" a rule). I think this rule moves golf away from a game of integrity, self-policed by the players, and towards a game that has to be "refereed". That's not a good thing, even at the professional level (the only level where it's even remotely practical).

I usually give a quick look around (to see who yelled), but then duck and cover my head to the extent possible regardless. Running away makes perfect sense...except for the 20% of people (in this poll) who yell “fore” on balls that may be 15 yards from hitting me (or, the 0.01% of balls that take some crazy hop or something). So, I err on the side of having my head better protected. I’ll concede that I have a slightly higher chance of getting hit overall, but I also have a 0% chance of getting hit in the head.

This is getting OT, but everywhere I’ve seen that they call them “waste areas”, for that exact reason.

There is no such thing as a “fairway bunker” in the Rules, either. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few different types (a “pot bunker” is still a thing that exists, whether defined in the Rules or not).

I just call them “Little Deserts”. That’s fine, right?

Hmm...OK, like I said, it's debatable...it'd be interesting to know how many of them really would. I just can't shake the thought that if you asked even Poulter whether he'd take an L in the Ryder Cup to win another tournament he'd say "yes" in a heartbeat...but I might be dead wrong. OK...I'll admit that, since I personally think the Ryder Cup is dumb, I'm projecting a little. I think it matters to them in the moment, certainly...these are hyper-competitive golfers and they very much want to win. I just think that it's silly to expect them to prioritize it over their individual success (by, say, playing in the French Open to see the course) or to show intense interest (by, say, not showing signs of a hangover from just having won their 80th PGA event). I do think it's interesting to compare it to the Olympics...it does seem really unlikely that some would decline to play in the RC.

No "maybe" about it, and it's not just Tiger. If you asked Ian Poulter whether he'd rather win the Ryder Cup or, say, the Memorial, I guarantee you he'd pick the individual tournament. Because...it's a f--king exhibition. Heck, look at even the Olympics, which come with a gold medal...professional golfers cared so little they were making up excuses not to go. The Ryder Cup matters a LOT more to mediocre players like Poulter than to guys like Tiger who are able to compete with the best.

I didn't say "meaningless"...but my point stands. Every player on both teams would lose the Ryder Cup in exchange for a win in one of 20 tournaments a year (maybe not the silly ones like the Hero Challenge or whatever, but certainly not just majors). OK, it's debatable...but I think they'd trade it for a win in the Wyndham or the Memorial or at least a dozen others.

What consequences? They lost an exhibition. Every single player on either team would trade a Ryder Cup win for an individual tournament win in pretty much any tournament with a decent field.

Well... Exactly. They prioritized their individual success over what is basically just an exhibition...which I'd say is probably a pretty good choice. Personally, I'm bummed it was such a blowout. I like European events since they're on early in the morning, so I would have enjoyed watching if it was actually close.