It is a dead hand when the clock expires when you are facing a bet or raise. When the clock expires you lose your right to act. It is the same as when you allow significant action behind you without protecting your action, you lose your right to act. Losing your right to act doesn't mean your hand is dead.

Totally different situation, in my opinion, because in your example the player has not been directly informed it's their action and given a time limit to act in prior to any subsequent betting.

My opinion is: the closest rule there is says it's a dead hand; the player's lack of respect for the dealer, floor and other players is bad for the game, because (among other things) it could give other players the indication not listening to those charged with running the game is acceptable; the player's refusal to act when directly informed it's his action by more than one person is analogous to a player not being in their seat for their action; A fold, bet, check are all actions and there is only one player allowed to play (act on) a hand, which is not the floor; Since the player was told it was his turn to play his hand and refused, it's just as easily an implicit fold as an implicit check, but again, the floor is not allowed to take an action for the player, so it's a dead hand.

Losing your right to act doesn't mean you check. It works both ways.

IMO forfeiting your right to act leads to forfeiting your hand. But again, JMO.

Well, sitting there and refusing to act in a reasonable time is exactly the behavior which calling the clock is supposed to discourage and possibly penalize. I think that refusing to act at all, even to check, is almost the same as abandoning your hand, and I don't have any problem with a rule that would kill your hand in this (extremely rare) event.
I'm guessing that the player thought it would be an auto-check, and did it deliberately to convey the impression that he was considering a huge bet, without risking anything.
I have seen the clock called on someone who was not facing a bet, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone let it expire in that situation.
But I do think the floor certainly should have explained the consequence of letting the clock expire without acting; as long as he did this, I think either rule would be ok.

We can nit over the rules all you like. I agree, this should probably be a check. But the floor can rule however the floor sees fit. In this case, the floor ruled it dead. Anybody else may make a different ruling. Protect your hand.

The title is a bit misleading. The dealer didn't make the decision to kill the hand.

It is not customary for the floor to explain what is going to happen. What should occur is the dealer will call the floor and say there has been a clock request. The floor should determine if the player has had an appropriate amount of time. If he has had enough time the floor should tell him he has x amount of time to act. After that time expires, the player may no longer act.

I think the real question now is, if we can nit over the rules, can we nit over the title of the thread too?

Honestly, I think both 'sides' of this ruling have some validity to their point, so I think either ruling is alright, but as a player (even not in this specific hand) I would like to see the hand declared dead, because I think the floor declaring an action is playing for the player and would actually be surprised if I was the player letting the clock expire if it was not.

Last Point: If we're going to 'nit on the rules', when the player loses the ability to act, then the player following them cannot legally act, because they would technically be acting out of turn since the player before them in the hand had not acted yet, wouldn't they?

Added: I keep getting back to...
If the player was in the restroom, his hand would be dead, because we cannot know what his action would be (check, bet, fold).

In this case, we also cannot know what the player's action would be (check, bet, fold) because he's refusing to tell us, so if we cannot make a decision for the player in the restroom, because we do not know what his action would be, how can we make a decision for a player who refuses to tell us their action?

Cliffs: We don't know this player's action, because he's refusing to tell us, so how can anyone decide his action for him any more than they could for a player in the restroom?

I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one and know there will be different rulings by different people should we ever decide to be completely rude and refuse to act during the time allowed for our turn.

When I find myself looking for technicalities, I try pull back and look for common sense.

Try. My life is a case study of getting too focused and passionate over trivial details.

Hmmm, sounds like someone I'm quite familiar with.
[checks mirror]

BTW, even if we don't all agree on the ruling, I love the discussion... Been a fun and thought provoking thread for me, thanks everyone!

If you can't act you can't check. Sounds like a dead hand.

Something that is worth noting is the idea of a hand being dead for bring away from the table is fairly new. It used to be that the hand was live until it faced action (big blind in tournament).

That's a good detail to know, thanks.

In this case you are talking about a player who was away from the table at the deal. Not the case of a player who gets up and leaves the table. Right?

I don't recall anyone getting up and wanting their hand.

And to this thread I have never seen a clock called on someone that wasn't facing a bet.