Steve Finnan

Another black day for footie though lads. Best, Van Persie and Stevie. All at the allegation/investigation stage but here's a question for you folks, many of whom are involved at various levels of the game with clubs etc.

Do clubs have something like a code of conduct, covering behaviour within and without the club?

Do pro contracts have anything like behaviour built in?

Just curious? Maybe some fo you might have information on this. I know the FAI Schools have one for interprovincials and internationals, boys and girls.

Anyone know anything about all this?????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3015610.stm


Killer drivers on phones face six years :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2913193.stm
Coincidently thats what Lee Hughes got.


It seems to me he may well face a jail sentence if he was using his
phone, depending on the circumatances, a rather worrying prospect.

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Another black day for footie though lads. Best, Van Persie and Stevie. All at the allegation/investigation stage but here's a question for you folks, many of whom are involved at various levels of the game with clubs etc.

Do clubs have something like a code of conduct, covering behaviour within and without the club?

Do pro contracts have anything like behaviour built in?

Just curious? Maybe some fo you might have information on this. I know the FAI Schools have one for interprovincials and internationals, boys and girls.

Anyone know anything about all this?????

I would say all of the above offences are covered by a code of conduct
called UK criminal law.

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

I would say all of the above offences are covered by a code of conduct
called UK criminal law.

I know what you mean but I meant internal discipline since far too many footballers behave in such an immature manner.

Again, I'm not making any judgements on the Finnan in particular.

Originally Posted by sirhamish

Another black day for footie though lads. Best, Van Persie and Stevie. All at the allegation/investigation stage but here's a question for you folks, many of whom are involved at various levels of the game with clubs etc.

and davor suker aswell

Originally Posted by jimbob117

and davor suker aswell

What happened there???

Originally Posted by sirhamish

What happened there???

Don't they have google in Galway?
http://news.google.ie/news?q=davor%2...r=&sa=N&tab=wn

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Don't they have google in Galway?
http://news.google.ie/news?q=davor%2...r=&sa=N&tab=wn

Smartass Why bother with Google when I've got Foot.ie. and kind people like yourself to let me know what's happening.

Sir "taking the high moral ground" Hamish

Originally Posted by sirhamish

What happened there???

Apologies sir, i should have explained!

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Not really. Killing someone on the roads is still killing someone on the roads. The important question in both cases is whether the driver was responsible.

True but both cases are totally different and thats what i meant nothing more. Hughes was god knows how many times over the limit also he left the scene plus the person killed did not walk out in front of him so both cases are totally different which is all i meant.

Originally Posted by jimbob117

Apologies sir, i should have explained!

No need for apologies, jimbob117. Should have checked out my google, as above poster scolded!!

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Thousands of people drive whilst using mobile
phones, it's just unfortunate if someone steps out on to the road at the time.

They do - and they're all idiots. You're supposed to be able to react if someone walks out in front of you - you're the one driving the big machine which can kill people - so defending accidents like this as unfortunate is not on.

However, until the facts of the case become clearer, I think anything here is just idle speculation really. However, the worst case scenario - six years in jail - would certainly end his career in its prime...

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

They do - and they're all idiots. You're supposed to be able to react if someone walks out in front of you - you're the one driving the big machine which can kill people - so defending accidents like this as unfortunate is not on.

However, until the facts of the case become clearer, I think anything here is just idle speculation really. However, the worst case scenario - six years in jail - would certainly end his career in its prime...

I am not defending driving whilst using a mobile phone (I dont have a
mobile myself anyway), driving a car is dangerous period.
It's more danerous when using a mobile phone, or when you have a few pints,
or when you have flu (slows reactions more than drink apparently).

I am just saying that you if someone walks out in front of you when you
are using a phone or when you have had a drink you are in big trouble
whereas if you were driving normally you would get off scott free.

You are assumed to be at fault in both cases which is not necesarilly the
case, you might actually be driving more carefully at the time because
were using the phone or had been drinking.

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

I assume he was drunk at the time as that is not mentioned

You assume that he was drunk?!? Why would you assume that?

Originally Posted by 4tothefloor

You assume that he was drunk?!? Why would you assume that?

Well because he fled the scene.
If I had killed someone in a road accident whilst drunk I certainly
would have fled the scene if at all possible.
If you kill someone in a road accident whilst drunk you get a jail term,
if you escape the breathalyser you escape jail (possibly).
As it turned out he got a 6 year term, I don't know the full circumstances though.
I assume be was adjudged to be drunk because he fled the scene.

Also someone said he had just left a party p*ssed out of his head, which
tend to back up the theory.

You mean Lee Hughes was drunk, not Steve Finnan then? Think Hughes was drunk alright.

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

They do - and they're all idiots. You're supposed to be able to react if someone walks out in front of you - you're the one driving the big machine which can kill people - so defending accidents like this as unfortunate is not on.

(

It isn't that clear cut at all and the law is their to protect those that need to be protected...So many different circumstances decide an accident. Cars cant stop straight away..if you drove..do you? you would know this..say someone walked out from the back of a bus onto a busy road not looking where he or she was goin and walked straight into a driving car who is goin at say as little as 15 or 20 miles an hour..Who is at fault...? The guy in the car sees the person at the last minute and breaks the car won't stop in time. The person cant get out of the way of the car cos he/she hasn't got his/her wits about em or maybe he/she is old and can't move quick or maybe he/she is a junkie and doesn't know what's goin on or is impaired in some way or maybe all of the above.....I cant and I'm not gonna judge this case as I know nothing of the circumstances but lets keep an open mind here and not straight away blame car drivers who ever they may be.

I do drive. Yes, cars can't stop straight away, and if (if) yer man was suicidal and walked straight out, fair enough. But if you're talking on a mobile, your reaction times are increased. Which means you're less likely to stop in time. Which means you're more likely to kill someone. Which means if you're talking on a mobile and driving, you're an idiot.

I have throughout this thread tried to shy away from making a judgement because I don't know the facts here, but it's undeniable that people on their mobiles and driving are a bigger risk. That's my entire point (and it's one which you didn't even mention in your post). That's all.

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I do drive. Yes, cars can't stop straight away, and if (if) yer man was suicidal and walked straight out, fair enough. But if you're talking on a mobile, your reaction times are increased. Which means you're less likely to stop in time. Which means you're more likely to kill someone. Which means if you're talking on a mobile and driving, you're an idiot.

I have throughout this thread tried to shy away from making a judgement because I don't know the facts here, but it's undeniable that people on their mobiles and driving are a bigger risk. That's my entire point (and it's one which you didn't even mention in your post). That's all.

As far as distractions go the police must be the worst offenders,
forever on the radio and watcing other peoples speed rather than their own.

Taxis would be banned too, then ambulance drivers!!

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well because he fled the scene.
If I had killed someone in a road accident whilst drunk I certainly
would have fled the scene if at all possible.
If you kill someone in a road accident whilst drunk you get a jail term,
if you escape the breathalyser you escape jail (possibly).
As it turned out he got a 6 year term, I don't know the full circumstances though.
I assume be was adjudged to be drunk because he fled the scene.

Also someone said he had just left a party p*ssed out of his head, which
tend to back up the theory.

Cant believe you said that, fled the scene and leave them to die. Have you any morals? Drinking and driving first of all is one of the most irresponsible things to do. And as they say if you do the crime etc etc