Henry Pollock is the centre of attention again. This time because of his antics at the end of the first half of the East Midlands derby between Leicester and Northampton.

Going into the break, the Saints led the oddly-lethargic Tigers. When the teams came back for the second half, Leicester looked energised and set about Northampton, eventually running in four tries and winning 28-7. The extent of Pollock’s influence on this volte-face is arguable, but it may have repercussions when it comes to Steve Borthwick’s starting choices for the final rounds of next month’s Nations Championship.

Before dissecting all this, let me freely own up to a degree of double standards on this, having been an agent provocateur in the past. In my defence, I would point out that my needling was largely confined to the French, and it worked. And it was done pre-game. Had it not been effective I would not have done it, particularly as it involved a good deal of personal pain.

To be fair, Pollock was one of more than a dozen players who were pushing and shoving, and this occurred more than once. (I realise this cannot realistically happen, but I sometimes wish the referee could allow one early all-out brawl to sort things out, after which we could get down to just playing the game.)

The thing that distinguished Pollock’s contribution was its continued nature and the fact that he clashed several times with England team-mate Ollie Chessum, who was captaining the Tigers. Moreover, his antics continued as the players ascended the steps that led to the tunnel.

Pollock stopped twice and bent over, for reasons known only to himself, and Chessum had to shove him twice to allow the rest of the players to get off the pitch. That Pollock did not react to being shoved by Chessum, or even turn round to face him, strongly suggests he knew what he was doing.

You can claim, as Pollock’s agent Eddie Hearn has, that this puts bums on seats and that Pollock’s celebrity status (he is on the current cover of Tatler magazine) and marketability make him worth £1m a year. You can say that this is all good: you want players to get under the skin of opponents and isn’t having this sort of powerful influence over opponents beneficial? Before doing so, let’s look more closely at the nature of this behaviour and notoriety because it is double-edged.

First, this is all self-induced and Pollock must stand or fall by what comes thereafter. Second, the theatrical and manufactured posturing that goes on before, say, boxing weigh-ins, is deliberate. It is designed to hype a fight and increase viewers. Rugby should not want and does not need this artifice. Third, in boxing this circus takes place days before the bout, not mid-fight. Why interject a mid-contest variable whose effect is uncertain?

Whether this pantomime was solely responsible for the distinct change in Tigers’ second-half psyche is debatable. That it had a significant effect is not. After the game, more than one Leicester player said as much, and Freddie Steward’s mocking of Pollock’s try-scoring celebration is further evidence.

What too few rugby fans consider is that an aura like Pollock’s is not confined to an individual battle, like in boxing, snooker or darts, where you have only one opponent to ponder. Joe Heyes, Leicester’s tighthead, said in his man-of-the-match interview that part of his own dominant second-half performance was because of Pollock “adding fuel to the fire”.

I have written many times about the highly interactive nature of rugby union and the way in which one position can affect another, often without many recognising the causality.

When Heyes began to give his opposite number, Emmanuel Iyogun, a hard time in the scrums, this changed the roles and fortunes of both back rows. Pollock and the Saints flankers found themselves having the unenviable job of defending line-out drives that stemmed from scrum penalties kicked to touch. They never really got off the back foot and Tigers scored four tries without reply. It was all over.

Last season, Pollock’s best performances came after early criticism of his antics. He let his playing do the talking, and he produced some of his best rugby in the latter stages of the Prem. A similar period of reflection and reaction would be in his, his club’s and England’s best interests. Ignoring what happened in this derby game would be to selectively attend to only those occasions on which things have turned out well for Pollock.

As a basic final question: do you think that Borthwick is more or less likely to pick Pollock if he thinks that giving New Zealand extra motivation might be the result next month?