This is almost word for word (other than the controls) like one of my suggestions for the breakdown.
I get the gut feeling that this may be considered too hard (too many controls too quickly) and too much slowing down the next phase of ball.
Personally I think that there seems to have been a phrase uttered over and over again over the years about these ***les "accessible". It seems there's a huge emphasis on making these games usable for people who are "casual" rugby fans so as they can "pick up and play it almost immediately". I hope this ruck system proves to be really good, because to be honest it feels like a different version of automatic.
As for slowing down the play, our system would be very marginally slower than what's being used here, it just requires a bit more getting used to. Also, in the system we've suggested, there's room for slowing play slightly (if that's your tactic).
In real rugby, this happens, it's part of the charm. There's several things about real rugby that are cumbersome and sometimes slow down phases, but that's all part of the tactics and strategy.
I'm a little concerned that this (and maybe RC too, who knows) are looking at it as though the game needs to be like what 20/20 cricket is to tests and ODI's (speed it up, speed it up!!!!, entertain the crowd).
The forward game in rugby IS slower, and about a lot of contact around the breakdown, running a couple of players out from that breakdown and slowly grinding down the defence. This isn't a broken thing which needs fixed. I'm a back myself, but I don't want to play a video game of "Backline speed, passing and offloads" at the expense of having to have "select a guess" forward play.
We've been told that making a good forward contest would slow down the game and make for a "game within a game". That's true, what's wrong with it? In real rugby the times where the forwards are grinding away trying to get the ball up the field IS a game within a game. Do we want real life forward play to be changed to a rule that the team with the ball calls out a number from 2-6 and each team commits "that number of players"? I'm not sure, I'd love to be convinced, but aren't quite yet to be honest.
In the future I'd like an option to switch between the two game types, "accessible" with the "strategic" options and "simulation", with the option to use a more sophisticated method similar to the "tackle, stand, contest" method discussed above. It surely wouldn't be impossible to do. It's just a little different, but I'm sure the results would be impressive.
I just fear that a game developer could not implement suggested ideas as above so well, so they could show why their specific idea works so well etc.
I just believe that the ruck systems being incorporated are being done with the idea of appealing to casual gamers, so as to appeal to the widest market possible.
