Rich,
You have greatly mistaken my resolve if you think that I will not go back and put those quotes in context.
The first jumpmaster quote was in direct reply to, and was posted directly after the original post in this thread. The original post stated that the catcher didn't even attempt to put up his glove. That means he let the ball go by intentionally. As jump said, you tell the catcher, "Son, you have to stop those. Got it?" If that doesn't fix the problem, "Coach, get me a catcher."
The second quote was mine, also in direct response to the original post. Again, the catcher didn't move for the ball. Despite whether you want to call it lazy, it is still a fully intentional act. Normal reaction any baseball player to a ball coming towards them if they are on defense is to catch the ball. You don't move and you had to think about it and do that intentionally. So, me to the catcher, "You better move and attempt to block everything. You don't move again, and I'll take it as you doing it intentionally and I will toss you!"
Third quote by gordon was him relating a story about a catcher who couldn't catch and he gets hit 4 or 5 times in one inning. Despite that he never stated he would eject the catcher. He did request that the coach put someone in there who could actually field the position. Now we could certainly discuss if that was the right thing to do, but never did he state he would eject that catcher.
The fourth quote by Mark was relating a story about the two times he had been hit by catchers who did not move for the ball. So, I let the catcher's coach that if the catcher did not start doing his job, that coach would have to find a new catcher. Again, an intentional miss.
The fourth quote by Mark was a reply to AtlBlue in reference to his original story about catchers who did not move for the ball. Even in the quote he states that as long as the catcher is making any sort of effort that's fine. "I do not have problem getting hit once in a while when the catcher is attempting to do his job to the best of his ability. But when a cather makes NO attempt to do his job behind the plate and the umpire is getting hit with pitches that, with ordinary effort, should be caught by the catcher, then that catcher does not deserve to stay in the game."
The last quote by DTB was in part of a long running commentary between him and AtlBlue. At the beginning of his post, he details the four times he was hit this year with the catcher making absolutely no effort. He even implied that the first three were somewhat understandable. It was the last one where the kid could actually catch and just choose not to move that pi$$ed him off and lead to that start of this thread. That was the original story that started this thread and that was the circumstance that lead to him stating Coach, you want a good job? Get a catcher that does a good job. Simple. Call it an ejection if you want. I think it is just a way of making the game go smoothly and allowing me to do a proper job. Yet again, it was a quote in reference to a catcher who made no attempt to move.
So as I said before, you attempts to quote people out of context is transparent to those of us who have sufficient reading comprehension skills. All of the people who you quoted said that they wouldn't even eject on the first instance of the catcher intentionally not moving. If would have to happen again for an ejection to occur.
Sorry Rich, but you need to read more carefully and come with a better argument than what you have.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Ives
Hey K, there are several of us who who seem to think various posters were advocating ejecting incompetent catchers, not just me. I guess that makes all of us stupid.
Go back and read the original posts. The quotes were not out of context. In fact, I skipped one of yours because, in it, you were clearly talking about a deliberrate miss.
A lazy catcher is not a catcher, he's just a player occupying the position.
|