Has anyone got a copy of the new rules?

How do some public figures merrily roll along while others, at a minimum, are condemned to infamy — life on Wikipedia Island — for similar or even far worse?

Why do some famous folks skate while others, accused of private indiscretions, transgressions and worse — especially of a sexual or racial nature — suffer public executions?

Last week Kobe Bryant was in town, making lots of news and noise.

He’s a big tennis guy, now, so …

Thursday, ESPN did what ESPN does. It reneged on its promise to show live U.S. Open matches — much the same as it abandons its contracted and promised coverage of most live sports — to seat Bryant between John McEnroe and Chris McKendry in an open-air studio.

From there, Bryant was treated as a pure nobleman. And he went into his angelic, gentleman mode, advocating participation in sports to pull the best from our kids, but specifically his.

Earlier in the week it was revealed that a far different Bryant, quoted at a public forum in Vegas a month earlier, trashed his ex-Lakers teammate Shaquille O’Neal as so lazy and out of shape that otherwise they could’ve won “f—ing 12 rings.”

O’Neal’s “social media” response was as direct: “U woulda had 12 if you passed the ball more .” Not a bad point as Bryant, amazing scorer as he was, became infamous for missing game-deciding shots while double-teamed (see: Anthony, Carmelo).

But the gnawing issue is why neither, given these times of extreme social sensitivities and corresponding activism to expose and punish the long-ago guilty, haven’t been forced to pay their back dues.

In 2003, Bryant, already a seven-year pro, ostensibly in a Colorado hotel on a physical rehab mission, was arrested as the suspect in an alleged sexual assault — rape — of a 19-year-old hotel worker.

Bryant, married, admitted to having had sex with the teen, but claimed it was consensual.

In 2004, the case was settled out of court; Bryant paying off his accuser. But Bryant was bound to make the following statement that began:

“First, I want to apologize to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and the consequences she has suffered in the last year.”

It concluded with:

“Although I truly believe this encounter was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.

“After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.”

That’s quite a misunderstanding! If Bryant’s statement wasn’t, at the minimal, an admission of sexual assault, it was close. It still reads and sounds like, “I didn’t do it, and I’ll never do it again.”

Beyond that, do you think most public figures would be allowed to credibly continue and advance in their public, center-stage careers had they reached a settlement and issued such an “explanation”?

But Bryant was quickly returned to NBA superstardom, a fabulously paid Nike shill and a commercial face of video games.

Last year Bryant won an Oscar for Best Animated Short to standing applause from an entertainment industry otherwise eager to purge its male sexual predators — even based on alleged episodes years, even decades earlier.

As for O’Neal, his public social sins, far milder, would nonetheless qualify as career-killers for most others in the spotlight.

In recognition of Yao Ming, O’Neal performed a racist bit in which he spoke gibberish posed as Chinese, as insensitive as it was antiquated.

He responded to a tweet from a facially disfigured fan by screwing his face into a hideous imitation of the young man’s birth defect. Funny stuff.

Either or both would cost a Broadway star or theater usher their job, if not their career, no?

But nothing. O’Neal is a star of NBA shows, commercial endorsements, talk shows and movies.

If only we had a copy of the rules.

Flag gives FG the boot

Colleges continue to spend tens of millions to win football games then lose them to inexcusable misconduct.

Thursday night on ESPN, UCLA, eventual 24-14 losers, trailed Cincinnati, 10-7, late in the first half when UCLA defensive back Jay Shaw intercepted a first-and-goal pass, returning it to Cincy’s 30.

But any chance of UCLA taking the lead or tying the game before the half vanished when Shaw was hit with a post-play flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.

ESPN’s booth — Adam Amin, Matt Hasselbeck and Pat McAfee — spoke not one discouraging word, as if to protect the guilty — and insult intelligent viewers — from such now-standard me-first stupidity.

We were, however, informed UCLA’s place kicker has good range — though left unsaid was that Shaw, seen celebrating with teammates on the sideline, had taken them out of that range.

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that Shaw’s bio notes Richard Sherman as his favorite athlete.

Cohen subscribes to fate

There are intelligent people who would still have you swap reality for fantasy, still have you believe that every second of every game stands alone, none connected, as if all games are played in a test tube within a clinically controlled environment.

Thursday, during the second inning of Cubs-Mets on SNY, Juan Lagares made a nice catch in center, likely saving a lead-off double by Javier Baez. The next batter, Victor Caratini, hit a home run.

At that point, Gary Cohen said Lagares’s catch saved the Mets a run, as if it was predetermined Caratini would homer — even if all the circumstances changed, including Jacob deGrom throwing the exact same pitch from the stretch as he did from the windup.

How did Cohen know that with none out and Baez on second, Caratini would not have bunted (or tried to), that he’d still have hit a home run? He didn’t know.

Still, it was somewhat of a predetermined game in that it was another home-runs-or-strikeouts number: Cubs won, 4-1, on six hits, two of them homers, but whiffed 10 times.

The Mariners’ Keon Broxton was ejected and suspended after a Monday incident vs. the Yankees — during which he struck out looking then, in angry protest, hurled a batting glove behind him. The glove hit plate ump Manny Gonzalez in the face.

This brought to mind the legendary 1905-1941 NL ump, Bill Klem. Called out on strikes, a player angrily threw his bat high in the air. Klem is then alleged to have said, “Young man, if that bat comes down you’re out of the game.”