It seems that every year there is at least one question on the NFHS test which requires the taker to guess what the question really means or tests the taker's knowledge of the rules of grammar, rather than knowledge of football rules.
For example 2009 Football Rules Examination - Part I, question 17 (a true/false question) "The runner may be legally clipped."
TRUE was the correct answer.
However, by rule, the term clipping does not apply to actions against the runner! Therefore if it is impossible to clip a runner in the first place, how can it be done either legally or illegally? ( I see this as similar to Ralph's explanation that you can not have a horse collar tackle which both starts and ends out of bounds, it is simply a dead ball personal foul.)
Now most of us would interpret the question to mean: The runner may be legally blocked when the initial contact is from behind, at or below the waist. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS!!!