KEY POINTS:
Next week rugby as we once knew it will pass away, relegated to a forgotten era that became obsessed with the collision and defensive patterns.
There won't be a great deal of mourning. It's fascinating how quickly fear about the introduction of the Experimental Law Variations transformed into excitement.
There was plenty of talk late last year that the new laws would see the game lose its integrity, become like rugby league and cease to be a game for all shapes and sizes.
By the end of February, when the hard grounds of Super 14 gave a platform for players to exploit the extra space available under the ELVs, even the most sceptical minds were beginning to see the new game's potential.
By the end of Super 14, it was like the ELVs had always been there. The scrum was by no means marginalised, backlines had been afforded more space and the changed laws around kicking for touch added to the pace and intensity. All that made it tough to revert back to the old laws for the June tests.
Tough for the players but far tougher for the spectators and, in these times of declining interest, administrators cannot afford to treat punters with the contempt of old.
Signs are encouraging that the attitudes of rugby officials across the globe have changed and whatever the results of the various trials, most will agree the 'old laws' should be ditched and at least some of the new concepts used permanently.
The game has to entertain. It has to be understood and it has to flow. Clearly the weather in Wellington didn't help but it took all of five minutes in the opening test to be reminded of how the old laws were set up to benefit those with the desire to stifle and harass.
Without the five metre alignment at scrums, both sets of backs can fire off the line and be in their opponents' face almost as the ball arrives.
As All Black backs coach Wayne Smith observed of the transition back to the old laws: "One of the issues is getting comfortable with the faster defensive line because getting closer makes it faster as well.
"It is just a matter of time in the saddle really. The conditions on the weekend made the space even smaller. If we get suitable conditions, we will hopefully be a bit more effective."
That's the problem, though, with the old laws. Teams can only hope to be effective. They need help from officials to police offside and even at the much drier North Harbour Stadium it was apparent - watching the Maori play Tonga - how obsolete the old laws have become.
The big challenge now for the IRB is finding the right formula for the long-term game. From August, the rugby world will become fractured.
Various rules will be in operation across various competitions and it will be almost impossible to keep track of what is legal where.
None of that really matters as long as, when the time comes to ratify one set of global laws, the IRB makes the right decisions at some point yet to be decided.
Some laws shouldn't even be debated. Former All Black selector Peter Thorburn has been heavily involved in proposing and analysing various changes over the years and he has no doubt what has worked.
"Rules that I feel should definitely stay include outlawing the passing back into the 22 and being able to kick out directly.
"Keeping teams five metres back from scrums is a definite improvement and I would like to see that extended to rucks and mauls as well."
Being able to throw the ball in backwards for quick lineouts is another mechanism to speed the game and foster counterattack. Thorburn would retain that, as well as the ruling about the offside line around the tackle.
It would be a surprise if there were too many who disagreed with Thorburn by the end of the various trial periods.
The rules he has highlighted benefit the speed, flow, and creativity of the game - something all nations say they are striving to achieve.
According to NZRU chief executive Steve Tew, support for the trial laws in the Northern Hemisphere is far stronger than has been reported. There had been reports that England and other Home Nations were reluctant to embrace the new laws but Tew said following a recent IRB meeting in Dublin that there were open minds around the table. There may be more objection to the changes by journalists in the UK than by those actually making the decision.
England had been wary of what would happen to scrummaging but were convinced to drop their scepticism and reserve judgement until they have evidence of the impact.
Probably the biggest uncertainty, then, lies with the philosophy taken towards the downgrading of most infringements to free kicks.
That's an area that hasn't been proven conclusively to benefit the game. Throughout Super 14, there were times when it felt as if teams were happily infringing as they were not scared of the sanctions. That put pressure on referees to manage the game more aggressively and created issues as to when he should move to awarding penalties and how he would revert back to awarding free kicks.
Still, those issues were preferable to what we saw last weekend, with whistle-happy referees and spectators who had no idea what was going on.
"People have to realise we are in the entertainment business," says Thorburn.
That's something the IRB can't lose sight of when they come to vote on the rules of the game.
