All Blacks: I suppose a ruck's out of the question

The French observe original maul rules, so may have an edge if it rains. Photo / Paul Estcourt

For those who can comprehend International Rugby Board policies and also understand the intricacies of the rule book, the maul is back tomorrow at Carisbrook.

In truth, the maul was always around, it never disappeared. However administrators tampered with its substance, and law variations trialled in this part of the globe which allowed defenders to collapse a maul, meant coaches and players became far more wary about mauling.

North of the equator, sides just ignored the law variations. They continued to maul so a side like France should have an advantage in that area of their game, if conditions turn to the projected custard tomorrow at Carisbrook.

The u-turn by the IRB, without global testing, did not endear them to the southern unions. Without everyone being involved, the trials had been a wasted exercise.

But having shaken off that frustration, the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks have to cope with the threats of the maul which their visitors will throw at them.

"They experimented with the law of collapsing the maul to try and prevent it being such a one-sided contest," All Blacks forward coach Steve Hansen said.

"Unfortunately the northern hemisphere didn't like that and when we went up to the ELV conference they vetoed it and then there was the discussion about how we make that area of the game into a fairer contest."

The key objection to the old - and now reinstated - mauling law, was that it felt like legalised obstruction. Those who watched Waikato in their pomp in the early 90s will recall how they marched teams backwards while they hid the pill at the tail of their forwards' formation.

Defenders could only try and split the maul. They were penalised if they dragged it down, toppled it or attacked the tailgunner in possession. It was legalised obstruction and Waikato were champions in the art.

Hansen said most mauls started from lineouts and believes referees have been told to make sure that defenders have initial access to the ball carrier.

"We think they have been told that when you bring the ball carrier down from a lineout take, you can't block him off, he must be available at the front of the maul, initially, and then the ball can be moved to the back.

"But I think the maul is a work in progress really.

"They still had concerns about it so, in short, we are going back to what we had before but it is going to be more strongly policed as a contest for both teams rather than the way it was. That is the theory."

Hansen predicted difficulties for match officials in policing the altered rules but said they had to be encouraged. Those on duty tomorrow at Carisbrook are Irish referee George Clancy and his Australian assistants Stu Dickinson and Paul Marks.

"Like anything we will have to look at the changes in the maul, then reassess it and if it is not right then maybe look at how we do get it right," Hansen said.

"We have to deal with it but our preference was for the other way. I thought it was easier for the referee, I thought that after a season too, we were starting to see teams maul again. I think people got better as we do, once we had experienced it.

"I think our initial reaction was, 'We are not going to maul because they will just pull it down'. But teams thought they would have a go at it, played around with their systems and I thought we were starting to see it come back in."

Hansen believes the return to the old maul laws will suit teams like the Springboks and England. Both sides picked huge forwards who favoured wrestling and mauling their way downfield, they were never as comfortable when rucking was in vogue.

The problem would be competing against those strengths. The best method would be to sack the maul immediately otherwise it would be extremely difficult to stop once it gathered momentum.

The All Blacks assistant coach thought teams would try to regenerate mauls once they had been halted and that was an area of the game where referees would need to be extremely vigilant. They needed to make sure players who picked a ball out of a ruck went on their own or passed the ball otherwise they should be penalised for regenerating that phase of the game into a maul.

While the maul might win more support, the breakdown was still the most difficult part of the game.

Rugby, unlike some other codes, remained a sport which continued after contact and was played at high speed. Framing laws to deal with the breakdown was always going to be awkward.

"So I think the introduction of having your hands on the ball and then a ruck being formed over you and not having to let it go will be good, because that is one less thing the referee will have to worry about," Hansen opined.

"It might be a bit messy for a start, but I think that will sort itself out."

Mauling would be favoured in messy conditions, wet weather and night rugby - pretty much everything expected in tomorrow's test in Dunedin. It had always been a part of rugby, said Hansen, and should be encouraged.

"But I just think it has got to be in the charter of the game which has stated that everything has to be a fair contest and I think it had gone too far with mauling. However, let's wait and see what happens," Hansen said.