Human error is beautiful. Human error gave us fireworks and potato chips and made Lucille Ball and Buster Keaton funny. It gave us the Long Count, the Immaculate Reception and Kansas City's only World Series title.

Human error should be guarded against in the specific but embraced in the general. I'm vigilant against typos, semicolons and other errors, but what could explain my having this job in the first place beyond some kind of cosmic mistake?

I have to call you on this one. You're apparently not so vigilant on commas, as in there should be one between "Reception" and "and".

I know. . . . . I know.

*shame*

I'm no Duck fan, but I live in Oregon, and lord do I know that Duck fans can be a bit much, but watching the replay of the game it was striking how much the UO broadcasters were complaining about the officiating throughout the game with, in their view, many questionable calls going against Oregon.

Then of course came the onside kick, which we must remember was only possible because Oklahoma gave up a touchdown. If you're one of the top programs in the country as the people talking about BCS implications seem to be saying, you know you really ought to be able to protect a 13 point lead with 2 minutes to play. But the Sooners didn't. Blown call or not.

But the interesting thing on the onside kick was the camera angle that we saw on the replay clearly showed the ball touching a Duck player at the ten-yard mark, meaning it was legal kick. Of course this also show the subjective nature of the review process. It's amazing how much a camera angle can affect what seems to be ball position. Seeing that review, there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field.

Of course then there was the pass interference call. And that one was totally blown by the refs. The ball was obviously touched in flight, but the call stood and the review booth blew it. But you know what, Sooners, you still have to play defense. Instead, you left the Duck receiver totally uncovered, and touchdown.

And then the Sooners still had a chance to win, but they didn't. That's pretty much the reason why you play the game.

And thanks, King for doing your duty as a citizen. I missed your column, but I'm sure the cause of justice was served!

Anyone who sends a death threat based on anything to do with any sporting event should be hung in public. Sick, sick, sick

Any father who emasculates his own son by making hime play soccer is a degenrate wuss. I mean, soccer is ok for girls to play. If you research it's origin, it was devised as a way to avoid the use of the hands by male atheletes in Europe. Because nearly every European man, from Eastern Europe to the British Isles, is effeminate to the point of distraction, it was clear that a new game had to be devised that didn't force the participants to embarass themselves by having to catch and toss--especially while running. Watching the French play Rounders, for instance, will usually end before regulation because the umpires and spectators can't stop laughing. I mean, seeing those dandies try to throw something is hysterical. So Bukk, you are insane to condemn you soon to a lifetime of ordering daquiries and not knowing how to fix a flat. You, sir, are insane.

Finally, a voice of reason! Instant replay is one of the worst ideas to ever happen to football (and the fact that it's spread to a fast-paced, free-flowing game like basketball is even more egregious).

There's a joke in my family that whenever a coach challenges a call on the field, everyone lightheartedly groans, because they know my rant is coming. For instance, during the first game of the season, instead of talking about what a great play the touchdown to Heath Miller was, we got Al Michaels and John Madden discussing whether or not Nick Saban threw a fucking bean bag correctly. Instant replay has singlehandedly shifted the focus of the game to the officiating from the game itself, and that's a damn shame.

And one last thing -- doesn't anyone remember that the NFL tried this once before? Most folks thought it was stupid then, right? Time doesn't make a bad idea good.

The game was handed to Oregon? I guess the refs carried Dixon into the end-zone with 90 seconds left in the game. And I guess they blocked that kick which would have given Oklahoma the win with a couple seconds left.

Those were two awful calls -- but King is right to point out that Oklahoma had a hand in their downfall.

BTW, as an alum of USC, I'd day they need to get a grip about Musburger dribbling on during the game. Apparently Tessalone isn't part of the crisis response team working up the Sergeant Schultz defense re: Reggie Bush ("I know NOTHING!"), so I guess he's filling the time as best he can.

BTW, I think that in the event that either the NCAA can actually prove that USC staff knew something, or they decide to go with the vapor trail (ie, it stinks) rather than the paper trail, then the appropriate punishment is for USC games to seen only with Musburger providing commentary. That should ensure that no-one watches.

This is real life, not a video game. Instant replay can never work, because, as any graduate of high school physics would know (apparently the NCAA and the NFL ditched that class), video is in 2 dimensions and real life is in 3. Ergo, what appears "indisputable" on video may or may not be "indisputable" in real life. I would say to the Oklahoma fans, did you watch the Super Bowl last year? Oklahoma Oregon is only an early season college game, whereas the Super Bowl is a billion dollar industry. And the refs still couldn't get it right.

It's time to admit IR does not work, and let it go...