Be the Referee: Fumble Out of Bounds
By
Paige Winne
MHSAA Director of Brand Management
August 25, 2026
Be The Referee is a series of short messages designed to help educate people on the rules of different sports, to help them better understand the art of officiating, and to recruit officials.
Below is this week's segment – Fumble Out of Bounds - Listen
We are on the football field today, where the offense has the ball on their own 20-yard line. It’s 3rd-and 10. They run a draw play, with the running back gaining nine yards before fumbling at the 29 yard-line.
The fumbled ball goes forward to the 35-yard line before another offensive player recovers. Where should the ball be marked?
Because the ball was recovered in-bounds, it’s first down for the offense at the point of recovery, the 35-yard line.
If the ball had rolled out of bounds at the 35-yard line, before anyone could recover it, it would have been brought back to the spot of the fumble – the 29-yard line – making it 4th-and-1 for the offense.
(Photo by Larry Arreguin/Team Arreguin Photos.)
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.