Question 63 - Stupid wording

[waltjp]

NF Exam - Question 63

The rule states 'no part of his body' should cross the line. The test question says 'head or foot'. Am I being too technical here?

[mikesears]

Originally posted by waltjp
NF Exam - Question 63

The rule states 'no part of his body' should cross the line. The test question says 'head or foot'. Am I being too technical here?

I don't know if you are being too technical, but the answer is false based upon another part of the sentence; "through the waistline of the nearest teammate who is on the line".

[Warrenkicker]

Mike, I am just checking which words you are talking about.

63. A Team A player is a back if the player’s head or foot does not break the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waistline of the nearest teammate who is on the line.

2-30-3 A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.

I guess I only see a difference in which body parts to question and the rule specify.

I also think the question is false.

[waltjp]

I should have been clearer. I was asking about the phrase 'head or foot' from the test vs. 'any part of the body' in the rule.

I answered FALSE but have been told by a couple others that it's TRUE.

[BktBallRef]

Could someone explain how any other part of the player's body can be breaking the waistline of the teammate if the head or foot isn't? It's impossible, unless you see him with his back to the LOS with his butt sticking out, breaking his teammate's waistline.

The statement is true. Some of us are dissecting the questions far to closely. If you do that, it will hurt you if you take one of these exams for certification purposes.

[Warrenkicker]

If he was standing with his arms extended in front of him so that his arms were straight out, his hands and arms would be beyond his head and feet.

If the rule clearly states "body parts" then why should the question only ask about "head and feet"?

Probably just another poorly written question.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
Mike, I am just checking which words you are talking about.

63. A Team A player is a back if the player’s head or foot does not break the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waistline of the nearest teammate who is on the line.

2-30-3 A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.

I guess I only see a difference in which body parts to question and the rule specify.

I also think the question is false.

It is the waistline of the snapper, not the nearest teammate.

[Patton]

Originally posted by mikesears
It is the waistline of the snapper, not the nearest teammate.

Mike,

The definition of a lineman references the waist of the snapper, but the definition of a back refers to the waist of the nearest teammate legally on the line.

I agree with BktBallRef that this question is true.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Patton

Mike,

The definition of a lineman references the waist of the snapper, but the definition of a back refers to the waist of the nearest teammate legally on the line.

I agree with BktBallRef that this question is true.

I learned something new. Thanks for correcting me.