XYZ1 follow the aircraft onto the runway

[abracadabra]

I hear this alot, but am perplexed as to why it's allowed.

Situation:

Aircraft on short final, two aircraft waiting to backtrack runway for departure (common at LCY and other backtrack-requiring airports).

Tower: 'ABC1 after landing aircraft on short final, enter backtrack line up'

Tower: 'XYZ1, follow the RJ100 onto the runway, vacate at the end and hold'

Problem 1: The aircraft on short final may have missed the first transmission and only heard 'follow the aircraft onto the runway', which may result in going-around if already cleared to land.

Problem 2: The second holding aircraft has only been told to follow the aircraft in front and could also theoretically have missed the tower's first transmission. So if ABC1 decides to move onto the runway early, with the landing aircraft still on SF, it is a runway incursion. But if XYZ1 follows ABC1, is it a double runway incursion?

I would argue that XYZ1 has acted stupidly, not paying attention to the big picture, not checking final approach etc., but has not actually violated any ATC direction. Surely, this cannot be correct.

What are your thoughts on this?

[rej]

I think it is called anticipation, and whilst it is not allowed at every aerodrome in the UK, it must obviouisly work to a safe conclusion. I have to admit when I first came across it as an instructor overseas it sent a shudder down my spine byt it doesn't half keep things moving.

[abracadabra]

It certainly does keep things moving (assuming the aircraft involved don't backtrack at 5 knots!!) but surely it would be better to say:

'XYZ1, after the landing aircraft, follow the RJ100 onto the runway'