Billy - the difference between our arguments boils down to this: We've given you a specific case play that directly addresses our position, and you seem to want to find hidden meaning in the fact that a specific word wasn't used in a paragraph describing general principles. Isn't that a little like saying since no one has actually seen the fleet of black helicopters, that must mean they really exist?
Ok, now I'll give you my opinion on this topic. I don't think anyone here has advocated not calling 3 seconds. I believe Rich said it best - if you do make the call technically "by the book", it won't be your best call. That's because, in my opinion, if you are watching a player's feet that carefully and concentrating on counting, you have probably missed more important things like holding, a knee in the back, forearm push, elbow into the cutter, and many other issues. We have more important things to watch for first.
As far as 10 seconds on a FT, I don't remember ever calling it because I can't remember a player ever getting to 10. If I ever got to that point, I would call it, because the tape would show 10 flicks of the wrist. How could I justify *not* calling it at that point?
Going back to the video in the OP, my opinion is the reason the officials didn't call the travels is not due to A/D, but because they were concentrating on other things (defense, when was the ball gathered, etc.) and missed the call to the speed of the players. I still have yet to see any case play, memo, interp, or e-mail from a supervisor saying that plays that are "technically" a travel could be let go because there was no defensive pressure. I have, however, seen statements that say it is better to miss a possible travel if you're not 100% sure, rather than making an incorrect call.
Some may give A/D as a reason for not calling certain violations, but I don't think that's entriely correct. I can thing of other reasons why those calls would not be made.