No. This is not a technical wording bikeshed paint color party.
If a driver requires firmware to get the device work, and that firmware is not compliant to the FSF's definition of free software, it is considered "bait". Whether the firmware is distributed in a separate place makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
FSFLA is doing their job (whether they could have worded that text better or not is up to discussion, I suppose). They have their reasons, and anyone who knows the embedded device market, knows damn well that we need as much pressure as we possible can gather to keep the damage contained.
It is not in their job description to gather for the immediate needs of users, or anything else like that. Which is quite correct, the usefulness of FSF-like bodies is always in the long-term picture. We have other bodies taking care of short-term compromises (sometimes to the detriment of long-term benefits, and sometimes as a useful counterpoint to keep the balance).
 I prefer Debian's, so I tend to separate the various definitions of what is free software.