Rotate is not an instruction.
Isn't it? PM calls "Rotate", you say "actually today I'm not going to bother"?? Of course not!
Which is exactly the point; at the appropriate place, the PM calls either "stable" or "go around" and the PF flies the aircraft accordingly.
I'm with Piltdown Man, though, that many people making the rules in companies have no idea of the principles behind them, and try to apply the same criteria to small, manoeverable aircraft as widebody heavies. Often under pressure from Authority Inspectors who are equally clueless.
+TSRA, I'm afraid that the "when I were a lad everyone had to have two moon landings and a space shuttle rating" approach has been shown many times to be irrelevant. And speaking personally I know 10,000 hour captains that struggle through with the help of the SOPs as well as 500 hour guys who are absolutely brilliant. Hours are not a factor.
What is a factor is the sheer scale of aviation compared to 30 years ago; the accident rate then would be totally unacceptable now, so we have to close every little loophole even if it offends the higher skilled who have to conforn to the same requirements as the merely average. Of course one of the issues which is fundamental to this whole discussion is that everyone thinks they are higher skilled and therefore they would always be able to salvage the landing from a cr@p approach.