THAT old chestnut, the search for consistency, keeps raising its predictable head. It's a theme preached by managers in all sports, and now the football men are continually begging for referees to find this elusive quality.

Perhaps they feel the advent of professional whistle-blowers entitles us to expect consistency in the application of the laws.

Unfortunately life isn't that simple. Even professional golfers such as Vijay Singh and Padraig Harrington, who spend most of their waking hours on the course or the practice ground, have days when little will go right.

Referees should have as much right as managers to say that at the end of the day it was a bad day at the office, or some such gibberish. In fact, most would probably say something much more interesting if they were called upon to do so. And why they shouldn't they be asked to explain themselves publicly in this professional era?

Other people have had their say, but I'm not aware of Dermot Gallagher being asked what he thinks about being taken temporarily off the Premiership list for failing to send off Robbie Keane. Keane should have gone for raising his arm at David Beckham. Not because Becks is the nation's darling, but because that's what the law says and Middlesbrough's Paul Ince had fallen foul of it the previous week.

No-one has been more deserving of a dismissal recently than Graeme Le Saux for the disgraceful two-footed tackle which so incensed David O'Leary.

Yet O'Leary was the one who was banished and he would have been entitled to a little chortle when another referee, Paul Durkin, was demoted to the Nationwide League.

When an FA spokesman, Adrian Bevington, was asked to comment on Gallagher's demotion, out came the usual official speak.

"We are disappointed that Dermot Gallagher chose to make the decision he made," to which we can only respond: "Gerraway, lad."

How much more interesting it would be if Gallagher or others of his ilk were to tell us that his biorhythms were badly synchronised that day or one of his ferrets had died and he wasn't fully focused on the job.

TO those of you who think this column sometimes falls below the standard I initially set, I can only say that I'm always striving for consistency.

I've shifted south from my usual perch in the north wing to find inspiration from the last rays of the warmest October on record.

As soon as the bad weather kicks in you can be sure some football manager will call for a mid-season break.

Perhaps cricketers should take one as well - avoid those sweltering days in July and extend the season to the end of balmy October.

Next season's fixtures are starting to dribble out, although a Durham source tells me they're still having to make daily changes. They will not, therefore, be issuing anything yet to ensure that fans don't book accommodation in Eastbourne when the match is at Hove, as happened last season.

The previous year Lancashire informed Durham their championship clash would be at Blackpool when what they actually meant was Old Trafford.

While we brace ourselves for the inevitable plummeting temperatures, hopefully we still have plenty of cricket to look forward to in India.

In all the lengthy interviews I've read with people like Robert Croft and Marcus Trescothick very little of interest came across - just uncertainty and confusion.

"How can we give our best in such circumstances?" they ask. But there are times when all sorts of things conspire to prevent people from giving their best - that's why there's no consistency.

Croft is a family man and doesn't deserve to be lampooned for staying at home. But for single young lads like Trescothick it shouldn't be too much of a problem to say "let's give it a crack on the understanding that we can get out if things become intolerable."

THINGS obviously became pretty intolerable for Austin Healey on last summer's Lions tour.

Despite being fined heavily for his comments in a newspaper column on the eve of the deciding Test, he has now apparently described the coach Graham Henry as a "Kiwi runt" in his book.

Runt is an interesting choice of word, which is bound to raise speculation that one letter has been altered rather than look for something more appropriate.

If Henry were to consult his lawyers he would be told he hasn't a leg to stand on as runt can simply mean a person of small stature. It is more commonly used, of course, to describe the little weakling in a litter of pigs.

At least Healey is still trying to be interesting, unlike the other Lion to be reprimanded for criticising the management, Matt Dawson. He has now reverted to being as boring as most professional sportsmen in their newspaper columns.

Still, at least they're consistent

Published: Friday, November 2, 2001