We probably dont have enough refs but having watched some Aussi RL over the recent period I feel that 2 refs on the pitch are having a good effect - not always but most of the time.

Perhaps a regular SL ref and a lower leagues ref could work (training/experience would be a benefit too). The play the ball and say, forwards could be improved without recourse to video? Have we tried two refs over here?

As I've said many a time, just enforce the rules we have including the that we have currently were the defending team have encroached up to the base of the scrum before the ball is even out. Touchies job to wave the flag for offisdes but rarely if ever do.

And Smokey TA, sorry but you're wrong, there is no extra advantage to the non rushing to pack down team over and above what happens during any part of the game. You can't all of a sudden change the rules regarding time allowed to pack down just because it is the last few minutes. The 'sauntering' you mention happens for pretty much all the game in all matches by both sides, just because one side is behind and time is short doesn't mean one team is gaining an advantage somehow by following exactly what has gone before..
As HIM wrote, the sacrifice to lock in players that may not be forwards to 'gain' the extra time over and above what would it would normally take to form a scrum is the trade off, otherwise you have an actual advantage given to the quickly forming scrum team which would be unfair.

What rule change do you think I am proposing? Im happy with the rules as they are now. The time stops when a team forms a scrum and restarts when the scrum is started. Thats the same for every scrum that happens throughout the game.

What HIM is proposing is that because one team rushed to form a scrum and the clock was stopped and the other team weren’t ready to play. The team which were ready to play should be disadvantaged by being locked in to their first scrum line up. We don’t do that with any other part of the game, we don’t even do it to the team who weren’t ready to play. It’s a nonsense rule that achieves nothing, isn’t fair, doesn’t improve the spectacle and encourages more time to be spent between scrums with more ‘dead time’ where the clock is running down but no action is taking place. Im not even sure what problem this change is trying to address. No-one seems to explain what the benefit to the game of this rule is? Its interesting to note that the rule regarding stopping the clock when one team forms a scrum was brought in because of teams creating dead time by just simply taking as long as possible to form the scrum, it requires both teams to restart the action so one team could simply waste time, what is the reason for us to turn that around?

You keep saying its a disadvantage. It's not. It's a trade off. They can have whatever scrum formation they like. Just in order to stop the clock they have to get that formation ready to play. Where's the disadvantage?
They aren't locked in to their first scrum line up, they can change the players in it if they wish, just the clock would keep going.
You say it's not fair, I don't see why it isn't fair. Currently the team wanting to rush get an advantage. Removing that advantage and replacing it with a trade off doesn't create a disadvantage.
The benefit to the game is minimal. It's only a very small rule and would only apply in minimal circumstances. But it's about being fair to BOTH teams. The rules shouldn't favour one team or another depending on the circumstances, they should be even throughout the game.

You have a habit of bringing in silly points in favour of your argument and I'm not sure why. First it was the head and feed and now it's that the proposal would somehow totally turn around the current stopping the clock rule and allow lots of time wasting. Which is plainly untrue, as proved by the NRL where the rule works well.
No one is saying get rid of stopping the clock, just that if the clock is to be stopped then at least one team should be ready to play. For example, often the ref stops the clock after a conversion when one team is ready for the kick off but another team isn't. If both teams weren't ready should he stop the clock?

I'll ask it again, why should the clock be stopped if the team isn't ready to play?

You can’t sayu it’s a trade-off but there is no disadvantage. If there is a trade off there has to be a disadvantage. You are proposing a disadvantage, if it wasn’t a disadvantage what are you proposing it for?
It is the other team that aren’t ready to play. Are you really proposing a rule where a team could form a scrum, the clock stops, that team then breaks their scrum, the clock starts, and then stops again when they have reformed it? That sounds absolutely nuts to me.
You are removing an advantage (for doing something we want) by introducing a trade-off, yet you aren’t introducing a disadvantage?
Again it is worth noting that the introduction of the rule stopping the clock wasn’t introduced as an advantage to the team forming the scrum, but as a deterrent and punishment for those seeking to waste time.

There shouldn’t be changes in the rules at different points in the game. Who is suggesting there is or should be? Im not. The rules are the same for both sides, either side can stop the clock by forming the scrum, they are entirely fair and entirely even and consistent throughout the game.

Do you mean silly irrelevant points like the game being refereed differently at different points in the game like no-one has suggested?

If both teams weren’t ready the no he shouldn’t stop the clock (in this example). But when one team is ready, that is the team you are looking to disadvantage.

The team is ready to play. It is the other side who isn’t. They should be. For some reason you are demanding one team stays in exactly the same formation while waiting for the other team to get ready for play. Do we demand the defensive line stays in the same order at a controlled restart? It isn’t a punishment or unfair to not allow teams to waste time. It isn’t an advantage for one team over the other to demand they actually play rugby league for as much of the 80mins as possible. Minimizing dead time is not an advantage for one team over the other. We should outlaw and minimize time wasting wherever possible. That is all that is happening, neither team is gaining an advantage, both are simply asked to play RL and not waste time.

Smokey is dead right. The result of such a rule change would be more slow scrums as teams wouldn't always (if ever) want to lock players into a scrum when it can prove so disastrous to your defensive line. Maybe in the dying seconds and a score behind they might, but I'd wager more often than not they'd see an advantage in either setting a standard scrum or waiting for the other team to form the scrum on the off chance that they lock players in and leave their defense weak.