STLtoday.com

vegascardsfan5890 wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:46 pm How are they reviewing this??

Cubs challenged. Better question is why isn’t taking so long to it’s a one bd done view

How is this review taking any time at all??? The ball clearly hit the ground.

Absolut wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:47 pm

vegascardsfan5890 wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:46 pm How are they reviewing this??

Cubs challenged. Better question is why isn’t taking so long to it’s a one bd done view

It was originally an out.
Cardinals challenged

good double, Saggese.. You're a Tank

vegascardsfan5890 wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:48 pm

Absolut wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:47 pm

vegascardsfan5890 wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:46 pm How are they reviewing this??

Cubs challenged. Better question is why isn’t taking so long to it’s a one bd done view

It was originally an out.
Cardinals challenged

Yup. Sorry.

Umpire is blind.

Seriously, a catch!! What is the first base ump looking at.

Whatashame wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:49 pm Seriously, a catch!! What is the first base ump looking at.

He's from Evanston.......

How did the umpire call that a catch! I’m over 300 miles away from Chicago and saw it bounce

we NEED a CF who can actually HIT.

Pages is not MLB material hitting.

This offense really blows. Just way too many empty at bats.

Longest review in history on an obvious no catch.
BTW I understand that Wrigley is quaint but who is the genius that designed the RF foul line 4 inches from the bleachers????

icon wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:50 pm Pages is not MLB material hitting.

2 auto outs here pages to hampson

icon wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:50 pm Pages is not MLB material hitting.

I must agree. Not much behind the plate either. He allows too many passed balls with runners on.

craviduce wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025 18:50 pm we NEED a CF who can actually HIT.

Haven't had one of those since Edmonds.