Untracked? On track? Baseball writers can’t tell the difference.
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?
April 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
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.
REPORT COMMENT
April 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I agree. Yay for anal grammar/language police! Someone needs to keep the mob in line.
REPORT COMMENT
April 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Sarah, I am in complete agreement(NOT “agreeance” which is not a word) with you. I can’t STAND errors like this, especially since a big company like Yahoo should have at least a few copywriters catching these errors. Like Mike Birbiglia’s joke goes, “the funny thing about sportwriters is that they don’t know how to play sports, but most of them don’t know how to write!”
do people in the profession of writing not realize that I’m deducting IQ points when I see blatant grammatical and spelling errors? there’s a reason why this is THEIR JOB, and they are getting paid to do this! and don’t think because you are an “artist of the written word, you can just go ahead and make up words that don’t exist. it’s not just the content of the writing that counts, it’s the presentation as well. I wouldn’t accept a plate of food from a 4-star chef with a big chunk of raw meat hanging off of it and be asked to look past that in my judgment of it. I don’t know how great of an analogy that is, but you get what I’m saying…
and while we’re at it…an apostrophe before an S in a noun denotes possession, not plurality! when are businesses, the media, ANYONE going to grasp this????
thanks for letting me unleash an irrational commenter rant.
REPORT COMMENT
April 26th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
also…BOSTON NEWSCASTERS…”irregardless” is not a word. I don’t care how cute it is said with a Boston accent.
REPORT COMMENT
April 26th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“You might be better of “toeing” it.”
You might be better OFF “toeing” it, as well. Yes, I’m more anal than most. Why do you ask?
REPORT COMMENT
April 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Gah! Thanks for the proofreading. I fixed it. :)
REPORT COMMENT
April 27th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
REPORT COMMENT
April 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I was also taught by a 3rd grade teacher that the verb “to get” is a vague and ugly verb, and that if there is a more specific way to say something, you should use an alternative, depending of course on the context. So I’ve always tried to avoid any forms of the verb “to get” when I write. just a random note…
REPORT COMMENT
April 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Cubs broadcaster Len Kasper used “untracked,” had several people email in to ask him if he meant “on track,” and then proceeded to explain that no, he meant untracked. It was on WGN… maybe last week?
REPORT COMMENT
April 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I meant to put this but forgot to. It should be noted that while I tend to agree with you, the sports writers are also correct.
Here is the dictionary.com definition for untracked:
un·tracked [uhn-trakt] –adjective
1. that is not or cannot be tracked or traced: untracked marauders of the jungle.
2. Informal. achieving a superior level of performance after a slow start: The team suddenly got untracked and began to score.
REPORT COMMENT
April 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Dictionary.com is a slut.
REPORT COMMENT
April 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“Dictionary.com is a slut.”
If I don’t read it through the magnifying glass in my Compact OED, damn it, it isn’t a word.
REPORT COMMENT
July 27th, 2008 at 1:06 am
[...] just hope this weirdness doesn’t catch on with real Americans like that stupid “untracked” crap. Tagged: ESPN, ESPN.com, Limey infiltration, weird Britishisms These icons link to social [...]
REPORT COMMENT