Thanks for the offer but I won't.
The first decision whilst unfair is correct. If you retaliate the penalty must be reversed. Two penalties to one does not come into it. England could commit five but if Australia retaliate it is a penalty to England.
The penalty expiring again is correct. You ask; since when have penalties expired. They always have. It has never been the case the advantage goes on for ever. Usually at some point the team with advantage within a reasonable period knock on or just look like they are going nowhere. That did not happen. To be honest a savvy team would have made sure they got the penalty.
The overhead quite clearly showed Foley ran off his line. It would have been better if Owens had kept his mouth shut as neither the obstruction or the shoulder by Farrell were worthy of stopping the match. Once he had stopped the match however Joubert had little choice but to give England the penalty.
I'm in general agreement with you.
The only thing that I would say is the the most serious foul play in the first case was Robshaw grabbing Phipps (who was already being held from in front) from behind around the neck and dragging him to the ground. WR (World Rugby) have previously identified this as something to be stamped out of the game and requiring a YC. I don't think it's necessarily the case that the last infringement in a melee like that is the one to be penalised regardless of what has gone on before.
Re, point 2, I've seen similar come back for a penalty and also called play on. One of those 50/50 calls that happen.
Agree with your analyis of point 3, however I don't think that Joubert had little choice. It's open to him to say that there's nothing much in it we'll play on. Similar incidents had happened all game and none of the 3 officials seemed too concerned - picking out one at such a crucial point in the game seemed odd.
I will say, that that was a very difficult game to referee. Both sides seemed to go out of their way to make things difficult for the ref, so they can't really complain if he gets the odd call wrong. I though Joubert did a very good job handling the match. Regardless of individual decisions, he was calm and in control at all times. Think of the possibilities if Jackson or Clancy et al were in charge.