I think there is a big difference on this issue between travel ball and college ball. While we scout potential opponents when possible at the travel ball level and make recommendations to the catchers in our pre-game routine on particular hitters, the scouting is usually a luxury. There are so many teams at the travel ball level. In-conference scouting at the college level, however, is pretty darn good and is an argument for having a coach call the game.
Beginning with when the team was coached by JoeA, our two regular catchers have been calling their own games since they were 11. They have the best look at the quality of the pitches the young woman in the circle is throwing on any given day and they remember what calls worked against a particular hitter earlier in the game.
We don't have any illusions that a college coach would definitely allow either of these two ladies to call their own game, but as has been pointed out above, there are some coaches who do allow the catcher to call the game and I suspect most college coaches would agree with the "we don't want robots" position even if that college coach calls his or her own game. Catchers have to be able to come in and tell their coaches what is or isn't working for the pitcher and what is or isn't working against a particular hitter. If they have spent their travel ball careers becoming acutely aware of the "tells" on those matters because they are calling their own games, I would think they would be of more worth to the college coaching staff in that regard.
As he knows, I have the utmost respect for coachjwb. But his comment that "a coach's role is to do everything they can to give his or her team the best chance to succeed" raises a question of coaching philosophy: as travel ball coaches are we looking only to win or are we looking to develop our players and hone their instincts about how a real ballplayer thinks? Neither philosophy is wrong, but depending upon which approach you take, you will weight differently the marginal assessment of benefits versus risks.
As a community of fastpitch coaches we could, and have in past threads, transfer this philosophical debate to the question whether runners should have leeway to make their own decisions when the play is in front of them. Some coaches give no leeway and others err on the side of the runner using her direct view and assessment of the situation, and also on the side of the runner internalizing and growing from any mistakes she makes when making her own base-running decisions.
Again, I don't think either philosophy is wrong. We have opted at the travel ball level to put player development above the win-loss record, but others can choose to reverse those priorities and I don't think they can be faulted for that judgement choice.