It would seem to me that Rugby in Australia has problems. Little is served apart from accepting that fact.
Solution is to look to horizon and see who is successful and who has a system that accomodates the richness of the great game successfully.

Might I suggest we look to firstly New Zealand. Seemingly very well supported by its numerous and enthusiastic knowledgeable supporters with teams at the many levels supporting the triangle of excellence that culminates in the All Blacks.
Then there are to countries which face political and other privations. Georgia, Uraguay, Scotland. Again a happy and focused crew.
The Australian experience of old begins with the clubs (three or four divisions in NSW) upon whose shoulders the city/country representative sides stand in the vain attempt to arrive at a national side that is successful.
It has been said that the Matilda’s are the “Tillies” what will the Wallabies become.

I am a Brumbies man – welded since my days prior to their commencement – however I have spent time in the last two years in WA.
I would believe that the Force enjoys the Rugby Spirit of OLD (like Japan in the last RWC Ukraine in the same tournament and Randwick when they r “ran the ball”)-
Fun, skill and seriously playing the game in front of them seems to be the Force’s catch cry..
I am sure that Nic White will really enjoy himself when he goes west “young man”
All the best.

I was intrigued by the remarks of so called Legendary referee Nigel Owens and referee Frenchman Raynal.
I went looking for a basis in the rules for the decision and the “penalty” imposed upon the decision.
I regret that my research may be faulty as I was at a loss to find a satisfactory copy of the Rules of Rugby as they applied at the time of the decision.

If it is though that I am wrong or missed an important rule permitting the “disgraceful” decision please correct me however this is what I found:

The Roar basing it self on the transcript (it would also seem generally accepted) asserted that the time from from go to the “disgraceful” decision is:

78.25: Penalty.
78.50: Raynal – “Play on please”.
78.55: Raynal – “Quick play”.
78.56: Raynal blows time off. “Time off.
7 seconds elapses. “You play now. Time on.”
Three seconds.
78.59: Raynal “Ten?” – Foley looks back, begins kick.
79.04: Blows freekick

39 seconds had elapsed

I suggest that it hard to see any time available for Foley to “Stuff Around”.

Noting the very limited time as calculated from the “official recording” of the incidence I see no evidence of a “fact” or a “law” as referred to in Law 6 Rule 5 that empowers the referee to award the scrum in order for him to rely on Law 20 rule 5 to justify the “disgraceful” decision.

I have concluded that the only delay penalty permitted by the rules in the context of an allegation of “delay” is the awarding of a free kick – Law 9 rule 7(d).

The only sanction for “time wasting” is a “free kick” – Law 10 rule 2(d).

There does not seem to be a power in the referee to award a “scrum” for the stated infraction. See Law 19

It would seem that the “Foley” penalty kick was awarded for a “serious infringement” see Law 21.

The only time limit in respect of penalty kicks is in Law 21 Rule 4(c) which delay has to be in the course of kicking for a “penalty kick at goal”.

Law 5

4. The referee keeps the time but may delegate the duty to either or both assistant referees and/or an official time-keeper, in which case the referee signals to them any stoppage. In matches without an official time-keeper, if the referee is in doubt as to the correct time, the referee consults either or both the assistant referees and may consult others but only if the assistant referees cannot help.

5. Any playing time lost is made up in the same half of the match.

Law 6

5. Within the playing enclosure:

a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.

b. The referee keeps the time. However, the match organiser may appoint a time-keeper who will signify the end of each half. c. The referee keeps the score.

13. The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play and timekeeping, and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties.

Law 9

B2 (e) The kicker must take the kick within one minute and thirty seconds (ninety seconds) from the time a try has been awarded. The player must take the kick within one minute and thirty seconds even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: The kick is disallowed if the kicker does not take the kick within the time allowed.

7. A player must not:

a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.

b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.

c. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.

d. Waste time.

Sanction: Free-kick.

27. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.

28. Players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing immediately when the referee blows the whistle to stop play.

Sanction: Penalty

Law 10

2(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.

Sanction: Free Kick

Law 19

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage.

1. Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as follows:

(a). A knock-on or throw forward at a lineout; incorrect throw at a lineout; incorrect quick throw.

(b). A maul that ends unsuccessfully.

(c). An incorrect kick-off or restart kick (scrum option).

(d). A Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul.

(e). The ball or ball-carrier touches the referee and either team gains an advantage.

(f). A penalty attempt at goal not taken within the time limit.

Law 20

Taking a penalty or free-kick

5. A penalty or free-kick must be taken without delay.

6. Any player from the non-offending team may take it, other than for a free-kick awarded for a mark.

7. The kicker must use the ball that was in play unless the referee decides it is defective.

8. The kicker may punt, drop-kick or place-kick (other than for touch) the ball.

9. The kicker may kick the ball in any direction.

10. Other than the placer at a place-kick, the kicker’s team must remain behind the ball until it has been kicked.

11. The ball must be kicked a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark. Once the kick has been successfully taken the kicker may play the ball again.

Sanction: Scrum.
Law 21

Penalty and Free Kicks – A kick awarded to the non-offending team after an infringement by its opponents. Unless a Law says otherwise, a penalty kick is awarded at the place of infringement.
Penalty: Awarded against a team for a serious infringement.

4(c) No delay. If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.

REGULATION 24. MATTERS NOT PROVIDED FOR

Any Matters not provided for in these Regulations shall be dealt with by the Council.

The Rugby family has an history that is worth consideration as recorded in Dr. Google. A few short remarks
“….The first Australian rugby club was the University of Sydney in 1864.
Next in 1870 was the Wallaroo Club. New clubs were formed at Burwood, St Leonards, The King’s School, Newington College, Calder House, and one called the Waratahs appeared.
The first body to control rugby in the colony, the Southern Rugby Union,formed in 1874 which Union by 1880,controlled 100 clubs in Sydney and the country.
The Queensland Rugby Union (called it the Northern Rugby Union)was founded in 1882.
In 1892, the names Northern Rugby Union and Southern Rugby Union were changed to the Queensland Rugby Union and the NSW Rugby Union. The Metropolitan Rugby Union was formed in Sydney in 1896 to control club football, and in 1900, Glebe won the first district competition.
The hal mark of this diversity was development of crowd-pleasing players like Ken Catchpole, John Thornett, Tony Miller, Mark Loane, Roger Gould, Tommy Lawton, the Ella brothers and more recently Nick Farr-Jones, Phil Kearns, Michael Lynagh and the incomparable David Campese turned Australian teams into consistent drawcards…..”
The point I seek to make is that the Rugby History is one of inclusion of players from diverse clubs with wide appeal, not exclusion by elite clubs with narrow suede elbow appeal.

Question:”…What message does this send Darcy Swain, Matt Philip or Lukhan Salakaia-Loto when they are replaced by one of these nomads?….”
Answer: Try harder
The only incentive and encouragement the New Zealand players need is the pulling on of the All Black jumper and playing with the silver fern on their chest.
Being eligible for selection rests only on “ABILITY”.
The widest cohort of those with “ABILITY” eligible for selection should be the only basis for consideration.
Being a Wallaby should not be popularity contest based on points for sticking around.

Thank you for your kind analysis. Regrettably I suspect that you lost my point by your reference to the concept of “whimsy”.
At 74 and having spent the majority of my time when playing rugby in the front row on the open side whimsey and me are complete strangers.
On the field I leave whimsey to the back line. Off the field I drink Shiraz.
As to the details of your knowledge of the path to aspire glory that you say referees tread I thank you and observe that I can only say in the interests of O’Keefe and the side line meddlers that such a journey if taken was a waste of time.
Finally, given my age, I regret to sat that I do not understand the acronyms that you use. I have a strange belief that it is only words that say what they mean

Thank you for your kind analysis. Regrettably I suspect that you lost my point by your reference to the concept of “whimsy”.
At 74 and having spent the majority of my time when playing rugby in the front row on the open side whimsey and me are complete strangers.
On the field I leave whimsey to the back line. Off the field I drink Shiraz.
As to the details of your knowledge of the path to aspire glory that you say referees tread I thank you and observe that I can only say in the interests of O’Keefe and the side line meddlers that such a journey if taken was a waste of time.
Finally, given my age, I regret to sat that I do not understand the acronyms that you use. I have a strange belief that it is only words that say what they mean

The rule is “the ref is the sole judge of time and fact”. Hence it is that Rugby is the great philosophy in the sky.
I know of no rider that allows the ref to delegate his obligation to a TMO, linesman or woman or the board of the game.
It would seem to me that the ref is part of the agreement with the spectator who, after all pays for the ref.
If the ref breaks the agreement either by breach or negligence he or she is answerable to the spectator and is thus liable for sanction.
O’Keefe breached the agreement, at least with me as a spectator, by not applying the rules applicable to the relevant “time and fact” and failed in his duty to properly apply the rules as to “time and fact”
Hence O’Keefe and the other “on ground” officials ought be sanctioned.
The question is to what extent should be be sanctioned.
I know. They should not be offered any further engagements other than a game of touch and they should refund to all spectators such of the money that those spectators paid in the expectation of watching a test between two national sides of 15 players a piece playing according to the rules of the game throughout the encounter.
It is little wonder that the mighty game of rugby is at risk in the face of the level of competence from all so called “on ground” (as opposed to “on water”) officials on display on Saturday.