Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
When a catcher has been "catching" the ball without a problem for several innings, stopping balls in the dirt, balls way outside and leaping for the ones practically over his head, and then lets one go by without even flinching for it, it is not because he "can't catch". It is because he intentionally didn't try for the ball.
That is basically the situation that most people hear [sic]are talking about. It doesn't happen by accident and if anyone believes that, they are naive at best and just plain stupid at worst.
|
Nobody has disagreed with ejecting a catcher who intentionally lets an umpire get hit. If you're crawfishing towards the claim that that's all you've ever been defending, then fine. Those of us who have questioned the tactic of ejecting a catcher who
unintentionally allows an umpire to get hit one or more times have been clear and consistent in the what and the why of our position.
One final point in opposition to the tactic. The chances are greater than zero that the catcher you are ejecting is the best catcher the team has, and by forcing his replacement you're only making yourself
more vulnerable to being nailed by errant, uncaught pitches. So, the "toss 'em if they can't protect me" mentality is not only unethical and unprofessional, it's ultimately generally unproductive.
I've found the most effective way to keep from getting battered in those situations in which the catcher can't keep up with his pitcher's stuff is to simply move back. If you get back far enough, you can still interpolate the strikezone reasonably well, and have time to dodge the PB/WP's as they come dribbling by. Plus, it gets the message across to the coach in a subtle but unambiguous way.