I remember watching the pats/raiders replays where brady "tucked" the ball and the raiders were not awarded a fumble recovery and thinking, "Wow, that's a bullshit rule, but it's in the books so it can't really be argued (although it should be changed)".

Now, the game ending strip/td by the cardinals looked very similar. Can anybody elaborate on what made Brady's fumble a non/fumble and Rodgers' was?

Thanks.

---

The ball MUST HIT THE FIELD. In other words, the pass can only be incomplete if the ball is dead.

It bounced off Aaron's foot (talk about being unfortunate). If it hit the field, it would've been an incomplete pass.

However, because the ball hit Aaron's foot, it was still live.

---

Exactly. It's either a fumble or an interception. They went with the fumble. It's only a technicality.

Yup....had the ball hit the ground, MAYBE they don't rule it that way. But it didn't matter, as the guy caught the ball and ran it in.

---