Yes, if you miss it, it's your error - but responsibility is first on the person acting OOT, second on the person who has the action, and finally on you.

But all that said - we need more dealers with your commitment.

Can of worms fully opened ...

I'm well over my blaming Dealer days .. ..

Your employer, not the player's, should determine what level of 'customer service' a Dealer provides and (unfortunately) also try to get 'many' Dealers to apply those guidelines consistently within the room. Each room 'should' have it's own set of Dealer rules when facilitating the Poker rules.

You are correct that Robert's nor TDA really indicate a Dealer's role, but I've heard about this WSOP Dealer's Procedure Manual being pretty thick.

Granted there will always be players who want a Dealer to go that extra mile and Dealers are easy targets when a player ends up in an uncomfortable spot (or gets 2-outed) as well.

As is the case when calling out bet sizes .. It's not your job (unless it is your job) until a player makes it your job .. unless 'you' make it your job in order to keep the game moving along or there's that one guy in Seat 7 who looks shocked that you didn't realize that he 'always' wants a count. GL

In no limit, you're not supposed to call out bet sizes, only "bet" or "raise" unless requested. Many dealers do it though because it keeps the game moving and prevents someone in every hand from asking "how much is that?"

And yes, the WSOP dealer's guidelines manual is HUGE.

OP is supposed to protect his action.
Next three players are supposed to act in turn.
When both fail, the decision necessarily requires punishing or penalizing someone. Three or more actions is (I suppose) designed to represent the tipping point where the probable harm and/or angling opportunities have shifted enough to make killing the hand probably less harmful/unfair than rolling back the action. But somebody's sure to be unhappy, no matter what the decision.
Dead hand is the standard, default ruling, IME, even though floors usually hate to do this.
Backing up the action is at the floor's discretion, but usually only if OP really didn't have any chance to intervene in time. This is somewhat unusual, but can be correct (though not in this case).

Floor always wins

calling is acting.

The reason to kill the hand is to prevent a player from getting the advantage of seeing how what all the players behind him are going to do before he acts.

Some people here are looking it as not letting him raise solves all the problems ..

but what if he never wanted to raise .... what if his decision is whether to call or fold ..... and he wants to call if he sees calls behind him but not raises......

how does not letting him raise fix the advantage he has gained?

While the rule as a whole might be written ambiguously, the meaning of "to act" is unambiguous. There is an earlier appearance of that verb in the same sentence ("three or more players have acted").

So you'd have to believe that either he's using a different definition for each instance or he thinks three or more raises is a reasonable point to start questioning whether one might have forfeited his right to act. That's an absurd amount of action to allow a player to watch, even for a fixed-limit game.

Also, I really hope you know the difference between the blinds responding in-turn to an earlier raise and UTG+2 responding to it out-of-turn.

I don't think there are different definitions of 'act' in the same sentence. The focus needs to be put on 'the right to'. When the Floor decides to kill a player's hand he is essentially taking away his 'right' to fold, call or raise in this hand.

My proposed solution may be a happy medium for the two wrongs that have occurred. OOT action (x3) and failure to stop said action. It wasn't UTG's fault (disputable) that there was OOT action, but it was his fault for not stopping it, by rule.

Granted the rule doesn't say 'your right to act may be limited' it states 'you may lose your right to act (at all)'. So I probably lose to the lawyers here.

I have already stated that I'm leaning more towards a killed hand here, but if I let UTG stay in the hand I want to 'limit' his advantage gained by taking away his 'right' to raise unless action reopens to him on the current street (by the SB or BB, not B). If we back action up UTG can still limp and he would still have the option of acting on the B raise (because OOT action stands, right?). I'm saying 'no', as a trade-off for me letting you stay in the hand you don't get to take advantage of the extra information you acquired until the next street unless action changes after we move past this issue.

Certainly you can say that this was his plan all along but if this one guy in this one spot can spin such a web then praise he shall get from me! GL

One thing I have been wondering about - what if OP or the dealer had spoken up after 1 or 2 actions but other players kept acting anyway? I've had situations where I literally yelled at players to stop acting but they had long since tuned me out and kept moving.

Action should be wound back to him if he spoke up earlier, even if people acted after.

$5 button straddle. Stop, theres a button straddle, stop theres a button straddle, STOP THERES A BUTTON STRADDLE!

geesh

"Is that a straddle?"