I congratulate Tarnow-Mordi et al on their excellent scientific analysis of delayed cord clamping. I would like to inquire regarding the authors’ views on the terminology itself. The term, delayed, is generally not a good thing and often denotes a maloccurrence. The technique of delayed cord clamping is delayed only when compared with the current common practice, which might best be described as immediate or accelerated. The delay proposed is generally sooner than would occur compared with physiological cord occlusion from vasoconstriction. In that light, I wonder whether the authors would comment on the possibility of using a more accurate and less pejorative term such as semiphysiological cord clamping.