Only time will tell if the rule changes will be a success or not, but my initial reaction is that they are both pretty pointless and could potentially penalise what has previously been seen as good play.

How many times have we all cheered our own teams when they have banged a relieving kick into touch late in a game to take a few seconds off the clock. The ref usually stops the clock anyway if it's taking too long and I can't remember it ever been a serious issue with regards to constant time wasting.

I find the drop out change particularly puzzling. If an attacking team cannot score a try, forcing a drop out is generally seen as the next best thing, but now they'll have to sprint back into position to be ready for the drop out within 30 seconds. This could lead to problems for the attacking team, especially late in a game and feels a little bit like good play could be penalised.

This, the players aren't machines and taking away a few vital seconds here and there that do not detract in any way from the game will be putting them in potential danger, especially with the downsizing of the interchange.
Stop fecking about with things too much and just play the bloody game.
And who wants 10 tries in a game all the time ffs, 10 minutes lost isn't actually 10 minutes lost when you are having a try every 8 minutes.
Takes a few seconds for players to walk back after a try anyway, then opposition to walk from behind sticks to halfway, kicker placing the ball, ref making sure everyone is onside. it all takes some time in any case.
As for scrums surely this is a natural part of the game, stopping the clock all the time isn't on IMO unless there is deliberate time wasting.

I used him and Ennis as examples as they were the ones that sprung to mind mainly due to commentators. Whether I have noticed it more because of it is up for debate.

Why don't they bring a rule to stop rule changes every year, it should only be done every 5 years or so,so players and fans can get used to them