I complain when there is documented proof that they are in error, and would not correct it. You just gave it to me.
The Rules Committee agreed with me, which is why we have a RULE change, not an EDITORIAL change which is used to make minor revisions, or even a case play which is used to correct questionable or possible misinterpretations. In order to get this right, the RULE had to be changed, and it was.
Thankfully, the 2014 revision will eliminate whatever confusion, by some, about what had seemed like a pretty clear understanding of what was the purpose of the RTP foul. Clarification is always a good thing. I have no idea whether the revised language was intended as a revision of the Rule, or an Editorial change or why one might be selected over the other, as the benefit of clarification seems to be what is really important.
I do not consider myself competent to render an assessment of any football coach's capabilities, although I admit to questioning some, because I have yet to walk in a professional football coaches shoes, and despite many years of close proximity have never personally experienced the rigors and stresses unique to coaching football. I understand the nature of the inherent differences between coaching and officiating, the same sport.
Contemplating the philosophy directing and reasons for any rule has always been a serious consideration in helping me achieve proper execution of rules based on their common sense application. Any doubt, or possible confusion has been been eliminated by consistent dialogue with designated "interpretors" and fellow experienced officials at the High School and upper levels. Although my personal experience is limited to only 46 years working in 4 Chapters in 3 States, at the High School level, I have yet to work, or consult, with any official anywhere who has strictly limited illegal contact with a "Passer" to whatever might be interpreted to the undefined/under defined term of "charging into".
In recent years, I was similarly gratified by the inclusion of a definition for the term "Flagrant", which althought fairly universally understood, previously, was improved by specific clarification.
As I've stated, I respect the input of any challenge, appropriately raised by any Coach, and deem such challenge worthy of consideration prior to rendering my judgment. However after such consideration, being aware of NFHS 1-1-6 and 1-1-9 I I have accepted those responsibilities and whatever consequences may follow. In the scenario being discussed, my respose, "Thank you for your input, Coach, we're going to go with RTP", meets my understanding of a respectful, appropriate response, after which I expect the game to continue.