With reference to iii, there is no illegal play until the clock is hit, so not only do you not have an ethical responsibility to point out the [illegal] play before the clock is hit, you are wrong to do so.
Sounds good in theory, Phil, but I saw you correct an opponent several times during your broadcast from the Carolina Invitational on Saturday. Even though it happened more than once, you did not wait for him to punch the clock before correcting any of his misplays.
I would have done the same, but not for any reason of time management. In your matches, plays had been tried, and then errors made in taking them back. Before any alternate plays could be made from the then-illegal starting positions, you intervened to correct the errors. You made a wise choice, I think.
I am disappointed to see such intense focus placed on ways to technically win a match on time. I feel that such efforts violate the spirit of clocking matches. The reason we use clocks is so that matches are not inordinately long. They have largely solved that problem. In this regard, whether Frank Raposa had 9 seconds of delay remaining, or a full 12, does not matter. His match was going to finish on time either way.
That being the case, I have no problem with restarting the delay after a misplay. To my way of thinking, stridently arguing that 3 seconds must be removed from his time bank runs counter to the spirit of using clocks. On the other hand, if the rules are explicit on the matter, then I think they should be followed.
Is this a gray area in the ABT rules? If so, then it should be clarified. The Danish rules are certainly clear. If the ABT wants to adopt them, I have no problem with that. The Danish rules evidentally punish a player for his illegal move, by stripping away the delay time. This penalty is imposed even in those cases when the original play had not used the full delay. Is that what we want when legal moves are part of match rules? Do the Danes require legal moves in match play?
As for illegal moves, I would argue that he who makes the claim carries the burden of proof. Simply announcing that an illegal move has been made, and then requiring that a player figure it out while his clock is running, does not seem fair. As Phil points out, the player making the claim might be wrong. I think any such claim should be fully explained—and agreed to—while the clock is stopped.