Thanks Zebrastripes for (what I presume was your best effort at Constructive criticism). Actually I usually agree, and eagerly accept, "the NFHS's rationale for changing rules" and don't really need, " to have every detail spelled out for you", although the better I'm able to understand adjustments, the better I've been able to apply them and appreciate the intentions of the NFHS in making the adjustment.
I may have missed it, but unfortunately, I don't recall EVER SEEING a common sense reference to why the declaration of the RFP was changed to a silent application, and rather than guess and presume, was asking for and would simply appreciate clarification. Apparently, you have no idea either, otherwise you could have explained it clearly, eliminating my concerns.
Although enjoying having worked at multiple "other levels" I've learned that "What may even be extremely effective, for the goose, may not be all that practical, or applicable for the gander", which believe it or not, may even be a simple oversight. One proven way to overcome ignorance, is to request clarifying, explanatory detail.
Rather that speculate on what you presume, "I may think", should you ever have a relevant question, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide you with an accurate clarification. For the record, I actually do, and have always understood, "The NFHS does not answer to you or any of us." but it's always been my understanding that they are genuinely interested in, appreciate and consider relevant and constructive question and feedback.
"Growing pains" actually come in different sizes, some are necessary, instructional and ultimately beneficial while others too often prove to be unnecessary, counterproductive and even stupid. Should you last long enough to becoming an "Old Timer", You might also learn to consider that the benefit and value of adapting is directly related to the quality and improvement of the adaption. Football rules are a perfect example of "One size NEVER fits all (at least as well).