ABs offer different slant on discipline

The nightmare scenario, of course, is this. It’s the quarterfinal of the Rugby World Cup, England are struggling and Twickenham has taken on that nervous quiet when it senses that it is all about to end.

England need some inspiration. They need some possession; they need a try. And meanwhile, nearly 200km away, a fit Manu Tuilagi is reaping havoc for Leicester Tigers. And on the Mediterranean coast, Steffon Armitage is feasting on turnover ball for Toulon.

At that point, there can be no bleating from all those who have supported the RFU’s stance to ban Tuilagi for assaulting a police officer.

There can be no second thoughts. Do not stare into your empty plastic pint pot, thinking: ‘‘If only we’d had Manu.’’ You have chosen to support a team who have put best principles above the best team. Feel proud about your early elimination.

You may wonder if other nations would have followed the same tack. In which case, head south.

Two years ago, Julian Savea, the mighty All Blacks wing, was charged with assault on his partner, the mother of his child. The weekend after the incident, he played for his team, the Hurricanes, and after he appeared in court, he wept in front of TV cameras as he issued a public apology.

He was never given a conviction because, six months later, the charge was dropped because he had attended a ‘‘diversion scheme’’ that allows people to avoid a criminal record if they atone for their crime.

Savea had been on a police programme designed to prevent reoffending. He did not, as a result, miss a single game for the All Blacks.

Ma’a Nonu, the All Blacks centre, has had similar experiences. Twice in his early 20s he was arrested on alcoholrelated charges, the first of which involved resisting arrest after a scuffle outside a bar. On both occasions, the charges were dropped because of diversion schemes. The second of those involved writing out a cheque to a charity.

In an interview some years later, Nonu reflected on those clashes with authority. ‘‘In my early 20s, I wasn’t perfect,’’ he said. ‘‘But what can you do except learn when you trip up?’’

Only last year, Australia had a crisis of their own with the Kurtley Beale texting scandal. The repercussions of Beale’s actions were so vast that he took Ewen McKenzie, the national team coach, down with him.

Beale’s fall added up to a fine A$45,000 (four times as much as Tuilagi’s). He missed four tests and was back.

Without wishing to judge who is right and who is wrong, there are different approaches here to discipline.

Some thought Beale may never play for Australia again; as it was he was back in the side with astonishing haste. And maybe the All Blacks could have hung out Savea a little harder. Maybe they just did not want to lose one of their key men.

Another take would be that from Steve Tew, the chief executive of the New Zealand Rugby, who noted that a number of first-class rugby players from the country had transgressed the law, many due to alcohol excess, and he wondered whether wealth, plus fame, at such a young age actually added up to a case for giving the culprit some support rather than giving them a kicking.

With Tuilagi, there was this other option: proper penance, proper counselling, an alcoholawareness scheme, an apology more public than a few words on a press release, a chance to say that England rugby players do not abide by this kind of behaviour.

And England could have responded in kind: we abhor his behaviour, but we seek to support this young man.

Since Tuilagi’s news broke on Friday, I have asked numerous people where they stand on this and a slim majority favoured the World Cup ban. My vote also goes with the majority: laying hands on the two Leicester policewomen was crossing the line.

As an aside, I like reporting on a team who so determinedly seek to represent good values that they compromise their World Cup chances.