The difference is in having a record. Not great if you ever want to travel abroad as a tourist, let alone to play football anywhere.
Even a minor sentence can cause a lot of trouble when travelling.
Former All White Ceri Evans has been burdened with this problem since he was a varsity student in the 1980's.
He has a careless driving conviction after some youthful student stupidity in Ashburton in 1984 (no car accident or harm to another motorist it seems)
His appeal to have his conviction overturned was denied in December last year:
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/Professional-practice-docs/Case-notes/December-2024/Evans-v-R-2024-NZCA-647.pdf?vid=4
"[9] The extensive travel Dr Evans undertakes requires him to declare his conviction as a prerequisite to entering Australia and the United States. This is because the Criminal Records (Clean State) Act 2004 (the Clean Slate Act), which applies to Dr Evans’ conviction does not apply when a person with a conviction in New Zealand seeks to enter another country and is required to disclose their convictions...Dr Evans estimates he has declared his conviction approximately 100 times when entering Australia. This causes him embarrassment and inconvenience. In June 2023 when Dr Evans was entering Australia, a border control officer told Dr Evans to “address” his historic conviction, because the Australian Border Force was “wasting time” on a matter that had been reviewed multiple times. When he travelled to the United States for work, Dr Evans was required to attend an interview at the United States Consulate in Auckland prior to obtaining a visa. He was asked about his historic conviction. Although the evidence is not clear, Dr Evans’ understanding is that he may have to explain his conviction in any subsequent application for a visa to work in the United States. ...
APPEAL DENIED:
The Judge also explained that even if leave to appeal out of time was granted, she would have declined the application for a discharge without conviction because the direct and indirect consequences of the conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. On the contrary, Dr Evans’ conviction has had no genuine impact on his abilities to travel. The conviction has meant Dr Evans has suffered embarrassment and inconvenience when having to explain his conviction to border control officials, but this has had no impact on his ability to fulfil his travel commitments. The Judge also commented that she did not consider that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. "