Part I/IHSA

[Warrenkicker]

From the standard NF Part 1 test.

11. If one coach goes to the huddle for 30 seconds, another coach may then confer for the time remaining as long as only one coach is in the huddle at any given time.

51. When his team is in scrimmage-kick formation, the snapper is given special protection from a direct charge by an opponent until the snapper blocks or further participates in the play.

97. A clock stopped during a period for an official’s time-out will start with the ready-for-play signal unless a free-kick follows.

[VALJ]

11. False. Only one coach may participate on a conference at the huddle.
51. False. Don't recall the situation, but I know I got this one wrong on the test when I said true. I think he needs to have a reasonable chance to defend himself.
97. False. It starts on the snap for a TV timeout. (Probably other situations, too.)

[Mike L]

All false
11. only one coach allowed
51. protection only for the amount of time it takes to defend himself
97. Also includes "unless B awarded a 1st down or either team a 1st after a kick", which I think you can argue the clock should've been stopped anyway and the OTO did not actually stop it, but that's the rule. But then again I guess those are considered OTO stoppages. So....

[HLin NC]

What was so hard about #11?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

What was so hard about #11?

Good question.

[svm1010]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

What was so hard about #11?

The debate within our crew was that since they are only holding one type of conference and only one coach is actualy in the huddle at any given time what's the problem....

I think we settled on the fact that only one coach is suposed to be "on the field" according to the RB and that if these coaches wanted to relay race through the time out then there is no specific restriction to this occurring.

Even so the rule application for test purposes and practical application on the field don't exactly match here I think.

As for 51, Our rules interp said that while the statement is technical true it excluded the "reasonable time to defend himself" clause which I guess the Fed requires to make this a 100% true statement *shrug* guess I forgot to practice my mind reading in the off season.

[bigjohn]

b. One coach on the field to confer with no more than 11 players at his team’s
huddle between the inbounds marks.

[Warrenkicker]

I also think bigjohn has the answer to the problem with question 11. The question does not give the location of the huddle. In most locations on the field the answer to the question is False. However if the huddle ends up right in front of the bench area then the question is True. I believe we are all reading into the question the fact that it says "huddle" means that we are out in the middle of the field and thus we can't have both coaches out there.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

I believe we are all reading into the question the fact that it says "huddle" means that we are out in the middle of the field and thus we can't have both coaches out there.

Because that's the way the definition of a conference reads in the book despite the fact the huddle definition makes no mention of where it happens. It's a typical BS NFHS question that we see every year on these tests, but the answer they want is false.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

All false
11. only one coach allowed
51. protection only for the amount of time it takes to defend himself
97. Also includes "unless B awarded a 1st down or either team a 1st after a kick", which I think you can argue the clock should've been stopped anyway and the OTO did not actually stop it, but that's the rule. But then again I guess those are considered OTO stoppages. So....

97. Think punt followed by a new series for B. It's an official's time out and the clock starts on the snap. It's false.

11/51 -- the correct analysis has already been given.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

97. Think punt followed by a new series for B. It's an official's time out and the clock starts on the snap. It's false.

11/51 -- the correct analysis has already been given.

The comment was not whether the question was false or not (it is) but whether stoppages for the cited reasons are considered OTO's, which they are.