This ruling in particular was actually the last straw for me with these "official rulings." That, and watching the guy actually DM.
When 5e was released, we discussed Shield Master and I argued that the words on the page aligned with a ruling that said attacks first, then you get your bonus action shove. It made that part of Shield Master not all that great unless initiative or readied actions lined up well enough for allies to take advantage of the prone condition. I figured that was fair - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, which is about par for the course for 5e. Of course, a ton of people disagreed with me, and that's cool.
Then the "official ruling" came out that, actually, you can do it the way the people who disagreed with me argued. Fair enough, I accepted and adopted that ruling. Only Crawford could know the RAI, after all, even if a plain reading did not suggest to me this was the correct ruling. And now it's inexplicably changed back.
So yeah. I'm done with this guy's rulings. Not because I necessarily disagree with them in all cases but because of the inconsistency. In my view, one of the most important things a DM can do is be consistent as this is part of creating the conditions for players to make informed decisions. As well, having watched him DM, I can't see how you go from the words on the page to the play experience on display. His credibility is shot with me and, because I value that consistency highly, I cannot allow Crawford's rulings to make my game more inconsistent.