From an Antipodean point of view
When they have incident investigations they are always looking for what more could have been done to stop the holes in the cheese lining up.
If ROCAS (which I agree with) could have been a mitigating factor it is pushed as a defence against Violation of Controlled Airspace (VCA).
To those pilots who we are tasked with separating feel that it in someway maligns their airmanship, please don't take it personally. It is not aimed at you as an individual but at the pilot who is not as competent as you. It is not nice to be invited to 'Tea and Biccies' with management with 20/20 hindsight to discuss why your seemingly unambiguous instruction was interpreted differently by a pilot.
Over here, it is a requirement to instruct a pilot with taxiing instructions to hold short of a runway they may need to cross. To most pilots it would be obvious that they need a clearance to cross or enter a runway. It is the 'other ones' it is aimed at. You can obviously guess what the outcome may be if this instruction is not given.
Just take it as water off a ducks back if you feel that you are given an instruction that treats you as the lowest common denominator. We probably don't know you and are just covering our own backside in case you are an inexperienced pilot.
Life is too short, to get your stress levels up over this.