{"id":19604,"date":"2018-03-28T15:48:41","date_gmt":"2018-03-28T20:48:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/?p=19604"},"modified":"2018-03-28T15:48:41","modified_gmt":"2018-03-28T20:48:41","slug":"a-sticky-wicket","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/2018\/03\/28\/a-sticky-wicket\/","title":{"rendered":"A Sticky Wicket"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<p>Perhaps Gentle Readers are expecting some sort of comment on the recent unpleasantness. First of all, I dislike the term <i>ball-tampering<\/i>. I prefer <I>scuffing<\/i>. It was <i>scuffing<\/i> when <a href=\"https:\/\/metsmerizedonline.com\/2014\/10\/a-bag-of-balls-a-lot-of-questions.html\/\">Mike Scott<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/MzxrKO-yVV8\">Joe Niekro<\/a> allegedly did it to baseballs, and by gum it&#8217;s scuffing when Australians allegedly do it to cricket balls. I mean, eight cricketing nations divided by a common language and whatnot, but still. <i>Tampering<\/i> just seems awfully vague. I mean, it encompasses both scuffing and slicking, doesn&#8217;t it? Or sticking the things in a humidor overnight. Or deflating, it it&#8217;s the sort of ball that is inflated. Did Major League Baseball <a href=\"\">tamper<\/a> with the balls, and if so, how? No, this was scuffing, plain old straightforward scuffing, and that&#8217;s the word we should use.\r\n<p>If we need another noun, which as far as I&#8217;m concerned we don&#8217;t&#8212;<i>Smith and Warner banned for scuffing<\/i> does not require any further words imao&#8212;I am inclined to <I>incident<\/i>, which is the direction that ESPN&#8217;s indispensable <a href=\"http:\/\/www.espncricinfo.com\/story\/_\/id\/22903485\/full-coverage\">CricInfo<\/a> has chosen. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/cricket-test-zaf-aus-tampering-sponsors\/sponsors-put-australian-cricket-on-notice-as-ball-tampering-scandal-engulfs-a-nation-idUSL3N1R8098\">Reuters<\/a> seems to be using <i>scandal<\/i>, which seems inferior in many ways. It&#8217;s loaded with an unnecessary judgment, isn&#8217;t it? Particularly if paired with <i>tampering<\/i>. A <I>tampering scandal<\/i> is a tad redundant, and a <i>scuffing scandal<\/i> is difficult to pronounce, and besides sounds unfortunately like dragging one&#8217;s footwear. Also, the <I>scandal<\/i> is (I think, by implication) the response to the scuffing, not the scuffing itself. If Mssrs Smith and Warner are banned because of scandal, well, one could infer that they are innocent victims of social overreaction. They have actually been banned for scuffing, not scandal. Well, formally, anyway.\r\n<p>I&#8217;m pleased, though, that it hasn&#8217;t become StickyTapeGate. Trade deficit or no, the rest of the world need not import that particular bit of American verbal laziness. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/2003\/11\/16\/wit\/\">Wasn&#8217;t it Stephen Fry who said<\/a> that we should now retire the <i>-gate<\/i> suffix and replace it with the suffix <i>-a-lago<\/i>? No, it wasn&#8217;t. But if we must associate unsavory incidents with corrupt US Presidents, I would vastly prefer this to be <i>scuff-a-lago<\/i>.\r\n<p>But people are different, one to another, and people of honor may well disagree about usage in such a case. However I would like to think that nobody, under any circumstances whatsoever, would be so wrongheaded as to refer to it as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.smh.com.au\/sport\/cricket\/this-is-cricket-s-metoo-moment-a-rare-opportunity-for-complete-purge-20180325-p4z66c.html\">cricket&#8217;s #MeToo moment<\/a>.\r\n<p><I>Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,<\/I><br>-Vardibidian.\r\n\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In Which Your Humble Blogger doesn't actually write about the subject of the conversation, which frankly is only moderately interesting, even to YHB","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[191],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anglophilia"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19604"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19604\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19610,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19604\/revisions\/19610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kith.org\/vardibidian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}