The rubrics of any Mass isn’t micromanagement. Telling a pastor he can’t print his Mass schedule in the bulletin is.
Telling a priest he must celebrate the Mass by saying the black and doing the red isn’t micromanagement but telling him that he can’t celebrate the 1962 Roman Missal in his spare bedroom chapel by himself, or a hybrid Ordinariate Missal in his bedroom chapel is.
Following the directions on how to bake a cake isn’t micromanagement but telling me I can’t bake a cake is.
I happen to agree with John Nolan in his commentary:
'Heels together, feet thirty degrees apart; fingers in the palms of the hands but not clenched; thumbs straight and aligned with the seam of the trousers; head erect, eyes level; stomach in, chest out.' The 'rubrics' for standing at attention, which those who have had military experience do without thinking about it. I imagine that priests who celebrated the older rite on a daily basis didn't have to think about the rubrics. When the 'Tridentine' missal was published in 1570 it did not replace or supersede older rites and uses, and the continuation of practices with a provenance of 200 years was not a concession to those attached to older forms; it was a clear statement of principle. Nor did the Rituale Romanum of 1614 replace existing ritual books, but with the expansion of the Church into the mission territories of the New World it made sense to have a 'definitive' Roman exemplar. Those like Pope Francis who maintain that Paul VI's new Mass is the 'only expression' of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite are being 'absurdly unhistorical' to the point of outright mendacity. Likewise his lackey Arthur Roche, who in an interview opined that 'the Church' (whatever he means by that) has always strictly regulated the liturgy in the interests of unity. Does he really believe this, or is he a dissembler in the mould of his master? Either way, he emerges with little credit.