Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


johnnyg08 last won the day on October 9

johnnyg08 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,713 Excellent

About johnnyg08

  • Birthday September 24

Profile Information

  • Gender

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    MidWest Ump Blog

Recent Profile Visitors

20,445 profile views
  1. There definitely was a pattern there of using Teddy. We don't ask when we think we can get it on our own. He must have thought he could get it on his own. I do think it's a miss though.
  2. Finally, here's one that's closest to the play we saw tonight:
  3. Fair enough...but then it begs the question that there are more disadvantages than advantages to that technique.
  4. 100% agree with you...he was self preservation on that...he only tried to field it that way b/c his footwork was so awful he was left with no other option. He goes right foot and he can probably catch the throw in flight, out in front. I'm okay with the no call....but I think the no-call folks are leaning too heavily on a throw that an MLB first baseman probably field 99 out of 100 times with a compliant runner. I might be the only one on the planet who thinks this...but this is a far more complicated call than what some are making it. A "quality throw" is not a throw that has to hit F3
  5. I really lean in your direction. There is one reason and one reason only why he's running there. I need to add...I HATE F3s footwork on this. He goes right foot and we're probably not talking about this today...or last night.
  6. Here's another clip with one more angle at the end of the clip. From a distance...maybe it tells a different story? Maybe not?
  7. Now I'm just having fun, but you get the point. I moved the batter-runner into compliant territory.
  8. Here are a couple of images with the runner and without the runner (assuming compliance) Couldn't we say that Voit has a legitimate chance to scoop this throw had the batter/runner been compliant? Is there less controversy here because there was no heated argument/ejection? Or is it as simple as this play was officiated properly and there should be some amendments to Wendelstedt's interpretation?
  9. Harry's Hints from Wendlestedt: "Though a throw does not need to be "true," if there is no possible play on the runner because of where the ball was thrown, there cannot be interference for being outside the running lane. Just because a fielder must leave the bag to catch the throw does not remove the possibility of calling interference for running outside of the running lane"
  • Create New...