POSTED BY Sarah Green ON 11:57 am, April 26, 2008 - POSTED IN Rant
Nick forwarded the above story to me yesterday. I read the headline and was shocked—SHOCKED. Joe Torre was trying to sabotage Andruw Jones! Then I read the article. Apparently, Torre was not, in fact, trying to derail his centerfielder. He was trying to get him “on track,” not “untracked.” After some anal bitching between Nick and myself, Nick turned up several more examples—it appeared that this word was being misused all over the world of sports journalism! (So why am I writing about it and not Nick? Nick said it was too anal, even for him. I have no such compunctions.) Behold:
“With Bedard back, McLaren can concentrate on getting the offense untracked.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
“Ortiz, Sox can’t get untracked.” (Worcester Telegram)
“It won’t matter what the pitcher’s name is when Ortiz gets untracked.” (Hartford Courant)
“The hitters seemed to get untracked a bit in the past week, so perhaps it’s now Sabathia’s turn to get it all together against the Royals.” (MLB.com)
Is the American rail industry in such dire straits (note: not dire ‘straights’) that we’ve lost our ability to use the simple railroad metaphor, “get back on track”? As with many misused turns of phrase (note: not ‘terms’ of phrase), there’s some confusion about what “untracked” actually means. These sportswriters, if they’re thinking at all, seem to be mishearing “on track,” thinking it’s “untracked,” and confusing being on a track with being “stuck in a rut.” Thus, to get “untracked,” to them, is a good thing. (For similar mistakes, see: “Play it by year;” “For all intensive purposes;” “A mute point;” “A tough road to hoe;” “Sewing his wild oaks;” and “Tow the line.” You play something by “ear.” You don’t have “intensive” purposes, but intents AND purposes. It’s a moot point, not a mute one. If you’re hoeing a road, no wonder it’s so tough—trying hoeing that “row” instead. Likewise, it’s a lot harder to sew wild oaks than sow wild oats. And if you’re towing the line, what’s the line and where are you taking it? You might be better off “toeing” it.) But as the Language Log notes, the only entry in the OED for “untracked” is “not furnished with a track or path” and “not tracked or traced.” But I don’t think these writers mean that once Big Papi eludes his trackers, he’ll start hitting again.
The worst part is, the editors of these publications are either unaware of the problem or, where the term appears in a headline, even perpetuating it. (Kudos to Bob Costas’ producer, who seems to have shouted a correction into his earpiece after he slipped up in this clip.)
You know, lives aren’t at stake here. This is sports journalism. Maybe to some folks, that excuses such sloppiness. But I say, if it’s not well-written, what’s the point? Sports writing is like the dessert of the journalistic meal. It’s just empty calories, so if it doesn’t taste good, why eat it?
Jane 
Lyndsay 
Lynniemac 
Sarah Green 
Pete 
Metalhed 
Paul 
Thank you for exposing this misuse of terminology. “Untracked” has been a major pet peeve of mine and I hear it on the radio and tv constantly. It’s not just in the printed media. I am absolutely perplexed that people who write and report for a living think “untracked” means the same as “on track.” It seems to be such a commonplace error that it has become the accepted term. I understand it when you hear a player misuse a turn of phrase but not a journalist. I have heard numerous athletes say they don’t want to be treated like an “escape” goat as opposed to a scapegoat, not surprising. My only explanation is that it is such a commonplace error that it is now the accepted term. Another example of this in sports terminology is “chomping at the bit,” which is the incorrect phrase. The correct and original saying is “champing at the bit,” but I have conceded this one long ago. Whenever I hear “untracked” it is like fingernails on the chalk board and it may be anal or nit picking but I can’t help it. It’s beyond annoying and I am totally with you on this one.