In just one week, Souths players, including co-captain Sam Burgess, were implicated in a lewd video chat with a 23-year-old woman who complained to the club.

Then, earlier this week, co-captain Greg Inglis was charged with drink driving and speeding … on the same day he was announced as Kangaroos captain.

The inbox has been pinging with emails from angry Bulldogs fans ever since.

“You may have jinxed the Pride of League with their professionalism,” claimed one a few days ago. “Greg Inglis, drink driving and speeding. Your thoughts on this professional club now after the Sam Burgess issue sweeped [sic] under the carpet by all involved.”

Usually, I stop quality racehorses with a single bet. Turns out I can also jinx an entire football club with a single column.

With tail between my legs, let’s unpack some of this.

The initial $250,000 fine the NRL handed to the Bulldogs for their Mad Monday silliness was grossly excessive for an incident we wouldn’t have known about if a news organisation hadn’t strategically placed photographers with telephoto lenses outside a pub in The Rocks for eight hours.

Where the club lacked “professionalism” was that the loose behaviour of some of their players happened with coach Pay and manager Holmes watching on – at a function organised by the club. The NRL has repeatedly warned clubs about Mad Monday for several years.

In my view, the way Bulldogs chief executive Andrew Hill publicly admonished and then fined players Adam Elliott, Asipeli Fine, Marcelo Montoya and Zac Woolford was disgraceful.

The club then failed to say what sanctions, if any, had been taken against the senior staff in attendance.

It took some crowbar work, but this column finally got it out of the club that senior staff have fronted the board and been “sanctioned”. The club won’t make those details public because an employment contract is different to a playing contract.

Half of the Bulldogs fine was suspended after chairwoman Lynne Anderson pointed out the lack of consistency in the penalties handed out to other clubs for off-field misbehaviour.

She pointed out no action was taken against Burgess nor Souths for the lewd video chat that made its way into the public domain. The NRL says her claims had no bearing on them suspending $125,000 of their fine.

Was the Souths’ investigation swept under the carpet?

Souths set up a panel to investigate the claims, which is standard protocol. It included Karyn Murphy from the NRL’s integrity unit.

Murphy has shown many times that she’s someone who is thorough, credible and follows the letter of the law.

She interviewed the 23-year-old woman and was satisfied that Burgess and no other player had breached the code of conduct, despite the woman’s previous claims – via anonymous emails to the club and then to News Corp – that she was exposed to unwanted nudity.

Some aren’t satisfied with this. They wouldn’t be satisfied with a Royal Commission because it doesn’t suit their narrative.

In not sanctioning Souths or their players, the NRL sent a clear message: it will not judge the effect of a players’ actions on personal relationships.

But the damage to the game’s reputation is something altogether different and this is where the NRL’s excessive punishment of Mitchell Pearce for his Australia Day poodle antics two years ago has come back to bite it.

Regardless of whether the video chat between Souths players and the woman were consensual – which hasn’t been confirmed either way – there’s an argument that images of naked footballers leaking into the public domain is a horrible look for a game.

Pearce was fined $125,000 and suspended for eight matches for having silly simulated sex with a dog. Regardless of Pearce's history of off-field behaviour, does the Souths incident not fall into the same category?

The Rabbitohs and the NRL have countered this by claiming the images were illegally captured by screenshot and distributed without the players’ permission. That’s a matter for lawyers and the police.

But wasn't the video of Pearce taken and not only distributed but sold to Channel Nine’s A Current Affair without his knowledge or consent?

Pearce had the book thrown at him because of the damage he'd done to the “image of the game”. Because of the weirdness of the video, it went viral and was picked up by news organisations around the world.

That’s dangerous territory for the NRL. It means a player is partly sanctioned depending on the news values of others, as well as the news cycle.

What damage has been done to the “image of the game” because of Inglis’ drink-driving and speeding charges?

One of the game’s biggest names – who is the Queensland and Souths captain and, for a few hours, the Australian skipper – broke the law and it was front-page news.

Inglis has been stood down for two Test matches, which equates to $23,000 in match payments.

“Consistency is a theme which often comes up around these issues, but it’s important to be clear on what is meant by consistency," NRL chief operating officer Nick Weeks said. "Our rules and processes are consistent in each case, but that doesn’t mean the outcome is always the same. That only happens where you have the same set of facts in two matters, but that is almost never the case.”

Fair enough. The issues involved around this stuff are complex.

I stand by my initial column. The fundamental difference between the Bulldogs' and Souths' indiscretions is that senior staff were present in one case, not in the other