A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents and players from the ball carrier's team bind on him.
So a ruck therefore needs only a minimum of two players, one from each team and the ball on the ground, while a maul needs a minimum three players in the carrier and at least one player from each team.
In both phases of play, a lot more than the minimum number usually become involved in an effort to win the ball, but a referee must observe how each phase begins and then develops.
It is important to note for a maul to be formed you need at least two players from the ball carrier's team - if he is held by a number of opponents but none of his team have arrived there is no maul and open play continues and players can join from any direction.
In a maul the ball must be above the ground, so the maul can potentially develop into a ruck as soon as the ball, or the ball carrier, is on the ground. However, a ball cannot be picked up by hand or feet in a ruck, therefore a ruck cannot legally become a maul.
In a ruck, players can use their feet to gain the ball while they cannot do so in a maul.
Players joining a ruck must bind only onto a team mate, but in a maul they can legally bind onto either a team mate or an opponent, provided they join from behind their offside line - the hindmost foot of their players.
Those are the differences - what laws then apply to both phases of play? Foremost is that both a ruck and a maul can take place only in the field of play.
Once the ball crosses the goal line, the rules applying to both cease and anyone can play the ball from any direction, provided they were onside.
Players can dive on the ball which was previously in the ruck and play the ball with their hands.
Players can legally collapse the maul in an effort to ground the ball, while they must join both a ruck and a maul from behind the hindmost foot of players in their team and they must endeavour to stay on their feet and not fall over the ball.
They must also have their head and shoulders no lower than their hips. As well, they may not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a team mate (or an opponent if it's a maul) because it's "dangerous play."
Under an international ruling not directly in the Law Book, players in a ruck or maul may not interfere with a player (usually half back) clearing the ball from that phase.
This ruling has given that person more space to clear the ball and added to the continuity in the game.
Just how the so-called "clearing out opponents" at a ruck fits in with this requirement I do not personally know.
It seems to be a product of the modern game and accepted if players use their arms as in tackling an opponent when they are endeavouring to move opponents from around the ball.
What we often see on TV, though, seems to be bordering on dangerous play.
Neither a ruck nor a maul can be intentionally collapsed. Intent can be a difficult thing to assess so a referee will often order a scrum if all players are off their feet and unable to play the ball, or the ball has not emerged from the maul.
There are specific rules as to which team gets to put the ball into the subsequent scrum.
If the maul collapses (legally) or the maul stops moving, then the team who was not in possession at the start of the maul get the scrum put in - the so-called "turnover" ball.
The exception to this rule is when the ball is caught direct from a kick, other than a kick off or drop out, and the maul forms immediately around this player.
If a ruck ends unsuccessfully and the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered, the rules are a bit more complex. The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable puts it into the scrum.
If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide who was before the ball became unplayable, the team moving forward before the ruck began gets the put-in.
Some of these rules pertaining to a ruck are about to be changed in order to speed up the game.
I won't go into detail here but Manawatu Premiers are trialing them in the second round of their competition, and several unions around the country have adopted them for the full season.
They will be in place for the ITM Cup and Heartland competitions, though.
This seems to me to be another case of the powers-that-be - primarily from the Northern Hemisphere - trying to lessen the impact of teams that are good at rucking.
I wonder which hemisphere they come from, primarily?
