OK, so I'll start the ball rolling
Option C is what I would do
The OP question says
"Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul."
Therefore,
Team A was in possession when the maul began
Team B was NOT in possession when the maul began
So...
[LAWS]Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered
Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
[/LAWS]
However, in 2014 a contradiction was intruduced (surprise, surprise!!)
[LAWS]Law 17.6 (g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.
When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]
So, D) is correct under Law 17.6 (g)
The problem here is that the original Law says the team in possession when the maul began will lose possession at the subsequent scrum throw-in, while the later Law says that the team in possession in the maul will lose possession at the scrum throw-in. They will not always be the same team.
IMO, the contradiction in the additional Law is an oversight by WR (12 year old proof readers strike again!!) I am 100% certain that they did not intend to change the effect of Law 17.6 (c), otherwise they surely would have changed that too.
So to resolve this issue in a practical sense, IMO the referee, faced with contradicting Laws should take the fairer option. Equity trumps Law, especially in cases where the Law is ambiguous.
Which is more equitable?
#1. Rewarding the team that successfully contests and wins the ball in a maul, or
#2. Rewarding the team that loses possession of the ball in the maul
I chose #1. Team A had their chance and lost the ball, why should the referee give them a second bite of the cherry?