Richie Mo'unga and George Bridge during Crusaders training. Photo / Photosport
COMMENT:
In the history of humankind, there is yet to be proof that anything good has happened in a fast-food restaurant. Some would say ever but certainly not after midnight.
This isn't a closely-guarded secret or inside knowledge shared with the privileged few and it really isn't news to professional rugby players who are told countless times to be wary about where they take themselves on a night out.
To be wary also of how much they drink, not just on account of being high-performance athletes but also because alcohol impairs judgement and increases the likelihood of doing something dumb, regretful or worse.
More importantly, it increases the chances of them being subjected to activities of others which are dumb and designed to provoke and anyone who has found themselves leaning on a bar late at night with a bit too much booze on board knows exactly how quickly things can go pear-shaped.
For professional players, who have profile, the prospect of some idiot coming along to spark trouble is so much higher and that's why, regardless of what comes out of the investigation into allegations made about Crusaders players in South Africa, there will be lingering disappointment within management circles that George Bridge and Richie Mo'unga put themselves into positions of vulnerability.
They committed the off-field equivalent of playing their rugby in the wrong area of the field and subsequently paid a price for taking that risk.
Bridge may question whether popping into a burger bar for a late night graze should be seen as him having taken a risk, but the fact he is now making national headlines for all the wrong reasons, should tell him that it was.
Presumably if he'd gone back to the team hotel and dialled room service his life would be a happier place right now and sadly, he, like all players, should have good enough instincts and enough common sense to understand that fast-food joints at that time of night are not providing the family restaurant experience they claim to offer.
Potentially of more concern is that Crusaders coach Scott Robertson said that Bridge, accused of saying homophobic comments while making his late-night pit-stop at McDonalds in Cape Town: "Just can't understand how it's got to this platform".
Really? This is the digital age and one in which social media has become a bona fide journalistic tool. Storms have brewed in all sorts of social media teacups and neither players nor management can justifiably claim they had no idea that it takes barely minutes these days for something captured on a phone to become global news however innocuous or non-eventful that particular incident may have appeared to have been to those actually involved.
The question of whether it's good practice for media outlets to consider allegations made on Instagram accounts as credible and printable sources is one that does need to be asked, but for the moment major newsrooms across the country say it is and players and management need to accept and understand that their world is now littered with greater risk than it ever has been.
They can't hide behind ignorance or naïvety and nor can they simply just hide.
These are not Draconian times in professional sport where abstinence is preached and management attempt to lock athletes in their rooms, letting them out only to train and play.
Some would no doubt say, given the events of last week and other recent incidents, that's what should be happening but it's not a realistic way for young people, regardless of their income, status and job requirements, to live.
Far better is the notion of building team cultures on a foundation of trust and responsibility which is what New Zealand's professional rugby teams have tried to do.
They have given players the freedom to live but also clear boundaries to observe.
They are treated like adults yet also given extra help to manage the undeniable fact that their profile brings different pressures and challenges.
Mostly, Super Rugby teams manage themselves sensibly and appropriately.
Most players, when permitted to do so, are able to have a few beers, enjoy themselves and get home to bed without incident.
The bad old days of institutionalised binge drinking are long gone and while it probably still happens from time to time, so too are the days of teams heading out en masse, pre-tanked and determined to be obnoxious as group mentality takes hold.
Rugby teams are not saintly or without fault but the fact there is an ongoing investigation into what a couple of Crusaders players got up to in South Africa, shouldn't be used as evidence of there being a systemic failure in behavioural standards or ingrained problems with alcohol.
What should be up for review is whether team management – and not just at the Crusaders – need to become more aware of the wider risks their players face and subsequently more explicit and definitive in setting boundaries.
There's a sense, which may be unfair, that given the age of most Super Rugby management teams, that they simply don't get all of what goes on with their players and can't effectively scan the landscape for potential trip wires.
Much of the modern world might be anathema to this older generation but they have an obligation to get with the times and deliver more relevant and comprehensive guidelines that better protect the players.
Increasing team protocol shouldn't be seen as moving towards building a more controlling and less trusting environment. Being more prescriptive about what is and isn't acceptable gives players greater knowledge to make better decisions.
So in that vein, presumably the smart thing for all teams to do is to say no to players frequenting fast-food joints on the way home.
Just as smart would be to impose a social media ban on the players when they are out. They can't stop the public filming them but the allegations in South Africa claim that Crusaders players were filming others.
The flash point allegedly was when Bridge asked to have his photograph taken with the men who laid the complaint.
Robertson described it as a "selfie gone wrong really," but it would be ridiculous to not realise that the chances of it going wrong again are just as high as not everyone likes having a camera thrust in their face and an unsolicited invitation to be part of a photograph that may make them uncomfortable.
So just as management have an obligation to be more aware and sensitive to the world at large, so too do the players.
Their jobs come with heightened pay and profile, but also greater responsibility to conduct themselves to different standards than their peers.
Where will Saturday's final eventually rank amongst the annals?