BY and large management entourages appear to have accepted behavioural standards in the technical areas.

Last season in contrast often saw power struggles between fourth officials and coaching staff hellbent on ridding themselves of our dreadful intrusions.

Of course as in all things there are exceptions.

Last Saturday, a local coach decided to wage a one-man war with yours truly. Incapable of distinguishing between two (acceptable) and three (punishable by death) standing, he vented his spleen with metronomic regularity.

I humoured him, I ignored him. However, after the third expulsion of toys from his pram, I adopted my stern posture -- arms folded, furrowed brow, and 45 degree eyebrows. I offered the choice of self-release from adolescence or a splintered posterior in a pre-war rickety stand. His response was unprintable in this family publication.

Post-match I reported the facts to the boss and we decided to report this behaviour under the "unsatisfactory" heading. In time the club will receive a polite letter from the league requesting a donation to its coffers. With luck his chairman will suggest that a few hundred quid would be better spent double glazing his new corporate box windows than subsidising the Disciplinary Office Christmas "do" in Barbados!

A quick one to finish Le Saux commits attempt murder -- the ref yellow cards him but admits he was wrong. Filed under no further action. Yet if Paul Durkin says "I didn't see it," our Graham would be in the stand for three games courtesy of the Video Panel. Why is it that Law and Justice seem so often to be such strange bedfellows?