When Scott Kuggeleijn made his Twenty20 international cricket debut earlier this month, his 2017 trial for rape appeared to have been completely forgotten.

OPINION: A budding sportsman treats a woman like an utter piece of trash with no condemnation, and less than two years later is being hailed as a hero in a national sports team.

Are we all okay with this?

In case you've missed it, cricketer Scott Kuggeleijn is smashing it right now. He was a standout performer in the Black Caps Twenty20 match against Sri Lanka last Friday, in his maiden game for the national team. National and international news outlets have applauded his batting, which helped New Zealand win by 35 runs. He is an emerging star.

You might also recall Kuggeleijn from two rape trials in 2016 and 2017, where he faced charges of raping a woman in a Hamilton East flat in 2015. The first jury couldn't decide whether he did it; the second found him not guilty.

The trial made national news for several reasons. He was an up-and-coming sports star, the son of former New Zealand cricketer Chris Kuggeleijn; he admitted the woman had said no at least twice to his persistent attempts to have sex with her, and apologised to her the next day; and the defence's line of questioning, which was outrageous.

READ MORE:

* Ireland rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding to be tried in rape case

* Kuggeleijn rape trial: Jury finds cricketer not guilty

* Kuggeleijn rape trial: Complainant's clothes 'provocative'

* Top Waikato cricket player 'set up' on rape charges - mum

She said she said no dozens of times, and he pulled down her underwear regardless. He denied this. "I tried [having sex] twice, like she might have said 'no, no' a few times but it wasn't dozens of times."

His texted apology the next day, later read out in court, read: "I heard you felt you couldn't say no and were pressured into things. It's pretty chilling to hear and think of myself in that kind of light, but looking back I was pretty persistent. I'm so so sorry and it has made me think about a few things. I hope you are OK and I'm sorry for the harm mentally I have caused you."

After relying on every rape myth in the book to paint the woman as a slut who was asking for it, Phillip Morgan, QC went on to ask her: "Were you saying 'no' but not meaning 'no'?" And: "Did you not recognise that telling him you were on the pill in those circumstances was you telling him you wanted to have sex with him?" And: "Did you mean 'No, not now', as if you did not mean it?"

A jury decided there was reasonable doubt Kuggeleijn knew she wasn't consenting, and he was found not guilty of rape. He told a reporter he was feeling "good," making no further comment.

DOMINICO ZAPATA/FAIRFAX NZ Scott Kuggeleijn, with his father and former Black Cap Chris Kuggeleijn, during an appearance at the Hamilton District Court in 2017 to stand trial for the alleged rape of a woman in Hamilton East two years earlier.

Putting aside the many documented issues with rape trials and their low conviction rates, let's move on to cricket's attitude towards Kuggeleijn's actions.

The Northern Districts Cricket Association, the province Kuggeleijn played for, released a meaningless statement saying they respected the decision.

"This has been a terribly difficult situation for all concerned," chief executive Peter Roach said. "Northern Districts is an organisation which embraces inclusivity and promotes respect towards women. As such, the charges against Scott were a grave concern."

Were they, really?

New Zealand Cricket made no statement.

The Players Association was silent.

A month later, Kuggeleijn was called up into the Black Caps ODI squad and played two games in May 2017.

Less than two years later, he's appeared for the Twenty20 team. He has, by all accounts, a stellar career ahead of him.

Yes, he was found not guilty of rape by a jury of his peers. There will be a lot of people out there who think this is enough, that he should be left alone to get on with his life. Given the radio silence around his debut, it could be that the majority of people think this.

But I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. This was a case where a high-profile player ended up in court because he disrespected a woman's autonomy. At the very least, Kuggeleijn treated a woman with contempt, with no thought for her wishes. He cared about getting what he wanted from her, at any cost.

There has never been any indication of anything but support from New Zealand Cricket. At the time, a selector openly admired the brave way rape accused Kuggeleijn was shouldering the trial. At Kuggeleijn's 2017 call-up, New Zealand cricket chief executive David White trotted out the same old line about "respecting the court process" as the right forum for settling matters.

This is an absolute crock.

A not-guilty verdict does not mean Kuggeleijn did nothing wrong. It was a lost opportunity for New Zealand Cricket to remind its players, and the country at large, about the importance of respect for women, about how utterly unacceptable it should be for anyone representing the nation to behave in any less than an exemplary manner.

In India last week, cricketers KL Rahul and Hardik Pandya, were suspended for derogatory statements made about women on a popular TV show. That's right: the pair were publicly reprimanded for the way they talked about women.

In Ireland in March last year, rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were both found not guilty of rape. But, in the aftermath of the highly-publicised trial, they were both fired by the Irish Rugby Football Union, which cited its "responsibility and commitment to the core values of the game: respect, inclusivity and integrity".

Are we all happy for the Kuggeleijn saga to be swept under the carpet? For there to be no acknowledgement, no apologies? Why didn't New Zealand Cricket explain why they thought it was okay to select Kuggeleijn for the team? What is the code of conduct expected of their players? What is Kuggeleijn doing to show he's changed his entitled attitude towards women? Are the other Black Caps comfortable sharing a pitch with him, slapping his back?

In October, the Players Association revamped its players' handbook, including a section on sexual consent. They were loudly congratulated for this on social media. I have no idea why. A five-year-old could have written them. The first line, I kid you not, is: "If they say no, it means no." Followed by gems like: "If they change their mind halfway through you must stop."

well done to ⁦@NZCPA⁩ on the inclusion of sexual consent guidelines in their “players’ handbook”. #NoMeansNo pic.twitter.com/mM5gnqtUeM — richard boock (@richardboock) October 9, 2018

If spelling out the most rudimentary understandings of consent is considered groundbreaking, then we have further to go than I ever thought possible. A "no" should not be the baseline for consent. If you've missed all the signs that the person you're with isn't into it – body language, physical discomfort or resistance, silence, clear non-enjoyment – so that they have to tell you "no", loudly and vocally, then seriously, how in tune are you with that person? Consent is affirmative – yes means yes.

Even more bizarrely, there is no mention of Kuggeleijn in the news story about the guidelines all. In fact, sports journalists seem to have collective amnesia about the events of 2016 and 2017 entirely. The only story I have read which has broached the questionable nature of cricket's open-armed welcoming of Kuggeleijn back into the fold was this one, written by Ben Stanley for Vice Sports in March 2017. Stanley is not based in New Zealand.

Not everyone is silent. There have been stirrings of dissent.

I've been a proud @blackcaps supporter since I was a wee kid but I have zero interest in any games involving Scott Kuggeleijn. I can also assume that NZ Cricket aren't remotely serious about getting more women into the game. — The Blurst of Times (@AFarmUpstate) January 11, 2019

Auckland University professor Nicola Gavey, who has written a book on rape culture and is a cricket fan, has slated New Zealand Cricket's inaction on her blog, Sexual Politics Now. "In the wake of MeToo, [NZ Cricket's] position seems strikingly tone deaf to wide global concerns about sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence. We see the interconnections. We know that the criminal justice process is a blunt instrument," she writes. "Doing nothing is not a neutral position. When Kuggeleijn appears on the field and the commentators talk up his glory with bat and ball, it's as if his actions off the field have been forgiven and forgotten by the cricketing fraternity."

That's not to say he should never represent New Zealand, she says, but that sportspeople have a unique position of influence in our society and this needs to be acknowledged. "For that reason, the position carries a reasonable burden of expectation for decent behaviour. And an expectation of public accountability when he falls short."

We have heard a lot about what Kuggeleijn has done on the field to merit selection. We have heard nothing about what he has done off the field to improve his character.

The whole country has been witness to Kuggeleijn's awful behaviour, to the distress of the woman at trial.

Minimising it, pretending that it never happened, expecting us to clap like happy seals when he hits another ball, just contributes towards a culture in which sexual violence is completely acceptable – just as long as you're not convicted, right?

It is a national embarrassment.