They do that to warn them not to get involved in the play. If a marker isn't square but stays out of play then the ref doesn't need to stop the game and give a pen.
Believe it or not the refs would like the game to flow as much as the spectators would.

There just isn't any advantage from getting head and feed at the scrum these days, the scrum breaks so quickly and the defensive line advances so fast that the attacking team very rarely makes any ground. Holding the ball in the scrum is sometimes the only way you can win an advantage, but I agree with you, I don't like it, it feels unsportsmanlike. I'd rather get rid of the scrum or make them contested.

As for ref's coaching the players, I've said the same myself. If they're offside, penalise them. At one point Thaler was screaming so loudly for a player to stay back that he confused everyone on the pitch and brought play to a halt. It's not his job to help defenders stay onside, it's his job to penalise them if they don't.

But that is where inconsistency then starts to ruin the game , let's start from scratch again , penalise what is an infringement , the coaches would then have to start coaching ' good ' play instead of coaching ' cheating '

As a sport we are poor at positive attacking innovation , far too much attention on spoiling tactics that ruin the entertainment value of the game , other sports ( footy and Union ) concentrate on cheating to gain ' penalty advantage ' , that isn't what I want to pay to see , if I did I'd watch those sports

I'm guessing that prompted Tez's "McClorum's not stood squur thurr" the other lunchtime.

Sorry but you're wrong, the players/coaches HAVE to adapt or be penalised out the game.
it is exactly the same with motorists, penalise instead of just telling because the latter simply means they'll carry on doing it because they think they can get away with it.
If you do something wrong and are penalised, you're less likely to do it again.
The coaches need to be told that refs will not instruct, they will just penalise if the players are infringing until the players stop infringing.

Referees 'coaching' you might get a free flowing game to a degree but as we see because players push things all the time (as told/trained to by their coaches) so often the games don't flow even with leniency which most fans complain about. By not referee coaching you force the players to take responsibility for their own actions, you essentially model the players to act in a way that you want them to, same as with motoring (except police don't hence why we still have tens of thousands of KSIs every year)

it's basic human psychology.

Suppose it's deadlocked at the death of the game and an opposition defender is offside in front of his own sticks, but instead of getting a penalty that could win you the game, the ref warns him and saves him from conceding a penalty and the game. I think you'd be within your rights to feel a bit cheated in the scenario.

Exactly, those that push the boundaries more are more likely to get off lightly and more often.
essentially you're aiding the team that deliberately infringes the most.

In tonight's game , Saints hold the ball in the scrum , the Widnes pack break from the back of the scrum

" Play on " says Mr Kendal

Too many complain about too many penalties. The refs are not coaching, they are helping the game flow.

Someone mentioned obsolete rules earlier, well I am sure many will be surprised to know that having to get to your feet b fore playing the ball and feeding the scrum ARE still in the rules but n ver get pinged....

Would be interesting to test this theory in a game to see what happens.

Play a trial game, and have the ref not be allowed to speak during play. See what happens. I honestly would intrigued to see if you have a penalty-fest (because players aren't learning fun their errors) or if they take more care "just in case."

If it was Child I reckon there'd be floods of baffling penalties whether or not he was mute.

Can you explain the rules exactly

HKR did us for it yesterday , Childs gave the penalty