今天在某网站看到这样一个案利。

Q:Stake defining the margin of a Water Hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A players ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alighment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was

the claim valid?

它的答案解释是：

A: NO. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitle to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the players ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard.

so the claim should not be upheld.

 

看了这个判例之后，突然对其中两个概念不清楚。水障碍的自然边缘和定义边缘。

有谁能帮我解答一下呀～～麻烦了～