I really don't think anybody's action is unreasonable, except the ruling. The dealer should be quicker mucking hands but they're not professionals so that can't be expected. Player C is just making conversation when the hand is over. I don't think the fact that A's hand isn't technically dead yet matters. It's a triviality. Player C didn't prompt A to turn it over. Player D just read a tabled hand. Player A turned his hand back over completely on his own, and his cards were never mucked. His hand is live and his intention doesn't matter.

If A hadn't turned his hand over, nobody would even think twice about what C said being wrong, right? Comments like this happen all the time without players getting called out over it. You're all being results oriented if you think C did anything wrong, IMO.

While some rooms use that procedure of the dealer touching the cards on the muck to "kill" them, that is just a symbolic gesture. If the dealer is showing cards due to a request from a player other than the winner, the hand is dead whether it touches the muck or not. The problem wirh thst procedure is that it reinforces In players minds that if the cards touch the muck at all its dead. But the rules actually state that cards that are in the muck can be live if they are clearly identifiable.

In my rare home games I appoint the 3 people with the most casino poker experience as the 'Floors' for the day.

Robert's Rules of Poker are posted on the wall.

If a situation arises, (I think we've had 2 in ~~ 100 hours of poker) All floors NOT in the hand make a ruling.
It may not be foolproof but it has worked out great for us. Also, The group feels that they will get an impartial ruling since the players are guaranteed to not be involved in the actual hand.

Wowo .. take a week off and we get a thread with this much wheels! Pretty consistent criss-cross between the casino and home worlds with a few 'other' rules being dragged into the mix.

The Bellagio does have one of the tightest 'Showdown' policies that we've seen. We've also heard that simply saying 'You're good' is enough at Showdown to award a pot .. and eliminate all rights to any 'live' hand. (different thread)

I'm surprised that no one has really mentioned that the Home Game scene 'can' be driven by the whales and in a case like this if the whale puts up a fuss, then you need to consider placating as a host .. to the point of paying off the other player from the rake. This doesn't seem to be the case here, but does always add a dynamic in an effort to keep the game going.

Back to the OP, the casino ruling is well stated here. As a game host, you need to assess the situation and make a decision. As also stated, consistency is the key. Were the actions of Player A's (attempted muck?) and Player C's (IWTSTH) consistent with any other hand in the history of the game? If so, then you handle them the same way whether it be live or dead.

There is no right or wrong necessarily since we all know that even different casinos have their own little twists to the rules. So what may be 'right' in one place may, indeed, be 'wrong' at another .. it's not personal, it's just the way it is.

OP, you're the host, you know your Players and how your game has been running 'in the past' and that's where you go to for rulings.

I will say that this is a perfect opportunity to make modifications, with full verbal discussion prior to the start of the next game, to 'tighten' things up if you want and/or just make sure that everyone knows that 'we've' got a good game going here and you're 'proud' to have them as tablemates in the manner in which they reacted to the spot .. so to speak .. but the more and more we hedge on 'casino' rules the easier it becomes for these types of spots to happen. GL