I was hoping that King would pick up on how Fox's broadcast missed Houston's lead-off homer in the second inning. When Fox returned from its break the ball was already in the left field stands. No hitter coming to the plate, pitch delivery or other such bothersome incidentals. Maybe this happens so often that King thought it wasn't worth mentioning. While I was fuming and spluttering I tossed the remote to my wife and she switched over to West Wing.

Hi King,

I'm in Metro Detroit watching on Comcast and the Chicago fan's "I Live For This" promo was shown in its entirety which explains my seeing only the ball flying into the stands. I suppose I should blame Comcast. And West Wing is pretty sucky this year.

I don't think so as long as they had a Christian baptism. My wife and I had been married nearly three years before I received an annulment of my first marriage. We had our vows reaffirmed in a Catholic ceremony and our kids (twins) were baptised on their first birthday at the same time.

I agree with grumbly person. It's not as though McGregor is unmarried and starting a career as a single parent by adopting an orphan. He's got two kids, his wife is 39 and they want a bigger family. I've got two kids and my wife is having another but she is 33. Where's the story here?

I caught up to the show on ABC Family reruns. My wife watched it while I cringed. My usual crack when one of the characters ruminated about the problems that cropped up on every episode was "I'm stuck on this crap TV show."

But wouldn't you know I got hooked. The show depicted domesticity and didn't apologize for it. At least once a show someone would unload a dishwasher or fix a sandwich and put away the left-overs. The parents were involved in their kids' lives and actually broached the idea, rare on TV, that teenage sex is inadvisable at best. And as a stay-at-home Dad I'll miss Kevin Kinkirk.

Interesting comments about audio's potential on sports broadcasts, especially considering that I watched the semi-final games over the weekend with the sound off and music piped over headphones so I wouldn't disturb my sleeping children and pregnant wife. That way I missed the pearls of wisdom that escaped the lips of David Hasselhof and Tony Parker.

With the hundreds of channels available on digital cable couldn't the sports networks offer a raw arena feed without commentary? At the very least they could measure demand for an experimental service, at best they could save money on their bloated commentary teams. The screen is chock full of information now. Take basketball,there's the game clock and shot clock, plus a crawl could be used to give info on substitutions, refs calls, etc.

I agree with D. Novak that soccer's unpopularity in the US and Canada, practically the only countries yet to catch on, has much to do with cultural context. Aside from its intrinsic attractions as a graceful and rugged sport, soccer is enhanced by the many local rivalries which date back to the 19th century: Rangers vs. Celtic, the Glasgow derby match in Scotland; Manchester United vs. Liverpool; Barcelona vs. Real Madrid. The list is endless and could also be applied to the international rivalries currently playing out in the World Cup.

I have a foot in both camps. I lived in Scotland until I was 10. my Dad was football mad and took me to loads of professional matches. Our family moved to Canada and I became an avid hockey, football (both Canadian and American), and baseball fan. But when live European soccer became widely available on cable and sattelite TV in the 90s, I gradually lost interest in North American sports. Why? Continuous vs. intermittent and TV ad-ridden action.

D. Novak may think that soccer's continuous clock is archaic but if soccer replaces it I'll stop watching. Even ABC shows each half of World Cup games without commercial interruption. The game has its own rhythm, not one imposed by sponsors. The games last 1 and 3/4 hours instead of over 3 for football, baseball and hockey. If Monday Night Football were really football, the games would always be over before the local news.

As far as the rules go FIFA will never allow modifications to suit one country. The offside rule in soccer is no more arcane than the one in hockey. To keep the play flowing from one goal to the other, attackers must move when the defenders do. Soccer players wear hard cleats and little or no protective equipment. Physical contact is fine but not with arms or elbows out,or dangerous tackles from behind or with studs up. The games disciplinary code is straightforward - you can commit flagrant fouls but they are a one way ticket to the showers. The game has problems. Diving makes a mockery of spotsmanship in a contact sport. Can it be boring? Sure, there are good and bad games in any sport , but can it possibly be more boring than baseball?

King I think that low scoring in soccer has more do with tactics than the offside rule. The offside rule, in fact, has been relaxed since the 1990 tournament in Italy which was notably goal deficient. For the 1994 US World Cup the attacker had only to stay abreast of the last defender until the final pass was struck. Officials still struggle with this distinction and many offside calls are dead wrong.

Back in the day, soccer teams were evenly divided between attackers and defenders. Teams would play with two fullbacks, three central defenders and 5 forwards: two wingers, two inside forwards and a centre forward. Wingers are now extinct and typically the two forwards do battle with a back four plus a holding midfielder. An analyst noted that Trinidad and Tobago played England with a 5-5 formation in which their two strikers marked England's fullbacks.